Page 91 - Summer2015

with raw milk consumption or evidence of con- of principle that mammalian milk in its raw state strengthens immunity
taminated milk, while 50 percent of them lacked to such a strong degree that it results in a lower risk of infection in infants
both of these. We consider this strong evidence even if the milk itself is a source of infectious organisms.
that raw milk is often blamed for outbreaks with We strongly support quality control that minimizes the risk of milk
inadequate evidence. contamination, and we consider the demonstrated immune-boosting
properties of raw milk, combined with clean and hygienic milking, stor-
A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL age, and distribution practices, to be most likely to protect people against
Although the Johns Hopkins authors ac- infectious diseases.
knowledge that a clinical trial would provide
needed clarity, they do not cite the only ran- REFERENCES
domized, controlled trial we are aware of that 1. jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/
research/clf_reports/RawMilkMDJohnsHopkinsReport2014_1208_.pdf, page 9. Accessed
examined the effect of milk pasteurization on May 17, 2015.
infectious disease. This trial compared the rate 2. Langer and others. Nonpasteurized dairy products, disease outbreaks, and state laws-United
8
of infections in infants fed raw human milk or a 3. States, 1993-2006. Emerg Infect Dis. 2012 Mar;18(3):385-91. doi: 10.3201/eid1803.111370.
realmilk.com/press/flawed-cdc-report-may-factor-state-raw-milk-defeats/
mixture of pasteurized human milk and formula. 4. Ryan and others. Massive outbreak of antimicrobial-resistant salmonellosis traced to
The infants suffered three times as many infec- 5. pasteurized milk. JAMA. 1987 Dec 11;258(22):3269-74.
realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf
tions when fed pasteurized human milk and for- 6. fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/UCM197330.pdf
mula, even though 15 percent of the raw human 7. realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ResponsetoMarlerListofStudies.pdf.
milk samples contained pathogenic organisms, 8. Narayanan and others. Randomised controlled trial of effect of raw and holder pasteurised
human milk and of formula supplements on incidence of neonatal infection. Lancet. 1984
which were eliminated by pasteurization. While Nov 17;2(8412):1111-3.
this study does not directly compare raw cow
milk to pasteurized cow milk, it provides proof

A RAY OF HOPE IN THE JOHNS HOPKINS REPORT?
The Johns Hopkins report on raw milk contained predictable spurious data and warnings against raw milk. However, it
was not entirely negative. In their report to the Maryland House of Delegates’ Health and Government Operations Com-
mittee, the authors, a group of prominent public health scientists from Johns Hopkins University, suggested for the first
time, that both raw milk opponents and advocates, “would gain much by being willing to discuss and compromise on their
positions.”
At the start of the report, the authors state: “Overall, our review identified no evidence that the potential benefits of
consuming raw milk outweigh the known health risks. Based on our findings, we discourage the consumption of raw milk.
The risks of consuming raw milk instead of pasteurized milk are well established in the scientific literature, and in some
cases can have severe or even fatal consequences.” The authors do, however, note European studies showing that raw milk
protects against asthma, allergies and eczema.
By the end of the report, the authors are much more sympathetic to raw milk, noting differences in how raw and
pasteurized milk are produced: “It is important to reiterate the systematic differences between most raw and pasteurized
milk production in the U.S. and how they complicate the public health argument for one or the other (Mendelson 2011).
Today most pasteurized milk is produced at an industrial scale, with farms containing thousands of cows fed corn and soy
products, and milk sent to dairy processing plants in bulk tanks. Dairy farmers at these industrial farms have the opportunity
to be more lax about hygienic practices. Further, the potential for cross-contamination of milk before or after pasteuriza-
tion is substantial due to these potential factors: a large number of workers, biofilms in distribution pipes, and unsterilized
equipment” (Mendelson 2011; Oliver et al. 2005).
“On the other hand, milk that is intentionally sold unpasteurized is often produced on small farms with grass-fed cows
and sold to local consumers (Baars 2013). While hygienic practices are not ensured in this setting, these farmers may be more
concerned for each individual animal’s health and the health of their customers. They thus may strive to prevent microbial
or other contamination. We believe in the benefit of consuming milk and other food products on a local scale, as it is both
environmentally sustainable and can support the local economy.”
In their conclusion, the Johns Hopkins scientists seemed to be recommending a compromise approach in Maryland,
based on strict labeling of raw milk. “In conclusion, given the scientific evidence, we do not recommend the consumption
of raw milk. If raw milk sales became legal in Maryland, we would strongly recommend that a labeling system be imple-
mented and that farm safety and hygienic practices be required. We would also recommend restricting pregnant women
and children from drinking raw milk due to their increased susceptibility to microbial hazards.”
Wise Traditions SUMMER 2015 Wise Traditions 91

154242_V16N2_text.indd 91 6/25/15 3:56 PM