Biffert 1

Tim Biffert Professor Lisa Packer English 1010 7 November 2013 Pastured Or Pasteurized: The Raw Milk Debate In our modern day of hyper mechanized factory farms, we find ourselves with a bit of a dilemma. On one side we have ultra cheap, ultra-pasteurized, safe processed milk --that does a body good-- and on the other we have dangerous, life threatening, raw milk --that might try to break out of your refrigerator and steal your wallet. What is the big deal? If raw milk is so terrible then why are people so passionate about it? While many people argue that this uncooked, creamy cow concoction in question is unsafe for human consumption, I contend that this milk from well treated, properly fed, pasture grazed bovines is indeed very safe and more nutritious than its processed counterpart. A brief look at our history describes our connection to milk and why we are, where we are. From Biblical texts to Hindu history, milk is an important part of the human diet. We humans have been drinking the milk of camels, goats, yaks, buffalo, cows and other animals for thousands of years; it is not until recently that we have decided that it is necessary to produce safer milk. Even after Louis Pasteur developed the process (in 1864) that we now call pasteurization, we didnt widely use that process on milk until the 1920s. In the early 1810s we see a migration in America starting from the country to the city, and with this we have a greater demand for milk in the city. Along side of milk we have a demand for distilled spirits. By a stroke of genius, someone decided that it would be a good idea to join dairies with

Biffert 2

distilleries being that at the end of the distillation process there is much spent grains left over and cows can eat grain. Because of the perceived beneficial relationship of these two, in cities we began to see distilleries popping up with adjoined dairies which, as you can imagine, did not come equipped with much space for grazing. In place of fresh grass, cows were fed spent grains. Instead of open pastures and clean air these animals were stuffed into overcrowded barns.. Those terrible conditions were well described in this excerpt from www.raw-milk-facts.com: Conned to lthy, manure-lled pens, the unfortunate cows gave a pale, bluish milk so poor in quality, it couldn't even be used for making butter or cheese. Add sick workers with dirty hands, diseased animals and any number of contaminants in unsanitary milk pails and you had a recipe for disaster.(A Brief) It was said that drinking this distillery dairy or swill dairy was a virtual death sentence. This was the beginning of the demonization of raw milk in America. What could be done though? Something needed to drastically change. Unknowing mothers were feeding this poison to their children. In the 1870s the infant mortality rate in New York City jumped to over 20% and stayed there for many years. In the wake of this epidemic, there where two very influential men that stepped up to the plate, both of which had lost a child due to the contamination at these swill dairies. A doctor from Newark, New Jersey, Henry Colt, MD. worked to reform the abominable conditions that were occurring on these filthy over populated dairy farms. After many years of urging the creation of the Medical Milk Commission, he succeeded in 1893. This organization would certify dairy farms that met their rigorous criteria for the proper development of milk. At the same time we have a wealthy New York philanthropist named Nathan Staus. His proposed idea was to pasteurize the milk, heating it to a high enough temperature to kill illness causing

Biffert 3

bacteria. Regardless of the conditions the cows were living in (manure filled stalls that were stuffed full of cows), the food they ate or the cleanliness of the dairy employees, the milk could simply be pasteurized to kill any potential pathogens. Due to his wealth and influence, Straus was able to tour America and Europe promoting pasteurization. Around this time health did improve in big cities. It has been believed, or the idea has been promoted, that this is solely due to pasteurization, however when you realize that by the time pasteurization was law, in 1948, the number of incidents of food borne illness was almost zero. This was in reality because of several reasons: the ending of distillery dairies, horses being replaced by cars, refrigeration becoming more available, water supplies being treated, improved hygiene and the certified raw milk movement --not pasteurization. Unfortunately, Staus tours and a smear campaign of bogus articles turned the countrys view of dairy (A Brief) (Harvard). It changed our attitude from natural to industrial. We have grown used to the effects of this distortion of truth. Today the fight continues. The Center for Disease Control, or CDC, emphasizes Raw milk should never be consumed by any one at any time for any reason(Raw Milk). Their list of possible bacteria found in raw milk include: Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis (a cause of tuberculosis), Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli [e.g., E. coli O157] and Shigella, Yersinia. This may seem like a long list of large, strange words but, in full disclosure, their symptoms can be quite devastating, as minor as diarrhea or stomach cramping to as major an incident as paralysis or death. Well, to bring this into perspective, the CDC recorded 148 outbreaks caused by bacteria in raw milk from 1998 until 2011. There were 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations and 2 deaths (Raw Milk). These

Biffert 4

numbers do seem very alarming but when considering the risk with the other foods we eat regularly, it is not so staggering. In Massachusetts in 2007 three people died from Listeria Monocytogenes in pasteurized milk --that is more deaths in one outbreak than raw milk had in thirteen years (Outbreak). In 2006-2007 an outbreak of Salmonella from peanuts grown in Tennessee infected 628 people (Multistate). In 2011-2012 thirty two people died from an outbreak of Listeria in cantaloupe, five people died from e coli found in spinach and 12 people died from bad lunch meat. Those are just a couple of examples (Harvard). All that to say that those risks are not necessarily as dire or different from other foods we eat and find perfectly safe. So it is safe, but why worry about drinking it if pasteurized milk and raw milk are nutritiously the same? The CDC and FDA will try to tell you that pasteurized milk is no different nutritionally than raw milk. For the most part this is true; however nutrients will do nothing for your body if your body does not assimilate them for use. Milk, in its natural state, is designed with carrier enzymes that act to cause 100% absorption of those nutrients. It also contains naturally beneficial bacteria that aids in immunity and general health. Raw milk contains good fats, proteins and cholesterol. On the flip side of this issue, the consumption of pasteurized milk has been linked to a large list of problems ranging from allergies, asthma and frequent ear infections to A.D.D., auto-immune disorders and diabetes. Carrier enzymes are used to carry vitamins through the guttural wall and into the bloodstream; after pasteurization occurs they are warped and are no longer beneficial but are viewed by the body as foreign proteins. The body responds to this by mounting an immune response. This has been thought to be a cause of Lactose Intolerance and other allergies. Even though the population is experiencing rapid growth, the market for

Biffert 5

pasteurized milk has been declining by 1% a year for the past twenty years. Peoples digestive systems are becoming ever more intolerant of pasteurized milk. Reversing this problem, 82% of people tested by the Weston A. Price Foundation, who were lactose intolerant and tried raw milk were able to drink it with no negative effects. In addition to this, it is recommended for people with low immunities (in low doses at first as to not shock the damaged immune system) (Harvard). In 1929 a Doctor named J.R Crewe MD. wrote an interesting article about the positive effects he had been experiencing due to his certified milk treatment. These treatments consisted of a diet of 5 to 10 quarts of raw milk daily, hot baths, hot pads, other types of heating and daily enemas. He claims great improvements in conditions like high blood pressure, cardiac disease, diabetes, tuberculosis, hypertension, nervous disorders, and many others (Crewe). None of this though is ever talked about by the CDC, FDA or most mainstream media. So why should we drink raw milk? Reason 1: Its great for you. When consumed uncooked, it contains easily digested vitamins and proteins It contains super probiotics --millions of beneficial bacteria that locate themselves in your gut and intestines-- that aid in digestion and vitamin assimilation. Reason 2: It is safe. Properly raised cows and routinely monitored milk will minimize the chance of bad bacterial growth. Raw milk from healthy cows contains good bacteria that defend against the growth of illness causing bacteria. Reason 3: It is better for the animals.

Biffert 6

Although modern dairy practices are easier for us as humans, it is much harder on the animals. In order to produce raw milk properly the cows need to be happy and healthy.

When cows are fed properly they produce quality milk with no need of pasteurization. Cows are designed to eat grass, a diet heavy in grain causes extras strain on their digestive systems shortening their life span and quality of life. Grass fed cows produce milk with a low chance of bad bacteria.

Reason 4: It helps small local dairies. In our country small local dairies are closing their doors at a rate of 16 per day (Harvard). Raw milk given its very short shelf life would need to be bought very close to its source. Purchasing from local dairies gives money directly to the dairies, eliminating the middleman and promoting local economies. Our local dairy neighbors who are ethically raising their animals deserve our business and are our best source of raw milk. Milk is only as good as the cows it comes from and cows are only as good as the food they eat, water they drink and the care given them. To ensure the milk you drink is good and the cows that make it are healthy, it needs to come from a trusted source. Given its naturally short shelf life, raw milk should come from a local dairy. Would you rather drink doctored pasteurized milk from confined, captive factory cows in some corporate dairy farm --from who knows where-- or fresh raw milk from happy, healthy pastured cows on your local dairy farm? When quality is out weighed by cost the consumer will suffer. It may be cheaper to simply pasteurize milk from large dairies than to monitor raw milk from local dairies, but raw milk is better for you, the farmer and the cows. There is always the potential for bad bacterial

Biffert 7

growth in any food but when milk is produced locally it can be trusted to be nutritious and perfectly safe.

Works Cited "A Brief History Of Raw Milk's Long Journey..." A Brief History Of Raw Milk. 2012 Raw Milk Facts, 21 June 2012. Web. 26 Oct. 2013. Crewe, J. R., MD. "Real Milk." A Campaign for Real Milk. ww.realmilk.com, 24 Dec. 2012. ! Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Harvard Food Law Society. "Raw Milk Debate - February 16, 2012." YouTube. YouTube, 22 Feb. ! 2012. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

"Multistate Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Tennessee Infections Associated with Peanut Butter ! ! --- United States, 2006--2007." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 June 2007. Web. 29 Oct. 2013..

"Outbreak of Listeria Monocytogenes Infections Associated with Pasteurized Milk from a Local Dairy." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 10 Oct. 2008. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. "Raw Milk Questions and Answers." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. Shmid, Ron, ND. "The Rise and Fall of Raw Milk." Raw Milk : Columbia River. Green Living Journal, 20 Jan. 2009. Web. 26 Oct. 2013.

Biffert 8

Tim Biffert Professor Lisa Packer English 1010 7 November 2013 Argument Essay Rhetorical Rationale 1. Describe your writing process for the argument essay. Look back at the process work you did and trace your thinking about your topic and about your writing. I initially was for raw milk. As I listened to the things the CDC and FDA were saying, my thoughts on raw milk were effected. However, the responses set forth by doctors and other health professionals and common sense, reaffirmed my original stance. I did learn a lot of great facts about about both raw and pasteurized milk. 2. How did you utilize rhetorical appeals in your writing? I used a lot of logos being that there are many facts to be discussed. The ethos appeal was represented with the quotes of and information from various doctors. I was a little light on the pathos appeal but I did use it with information on local farmers and them being supported by us. This appeal was as well used in discussing the treatment of cows. Kairos, because this is a big issue right now given the legal battles raw milk farmers are going through right now. 3. Describe the revisions you made in your essay and discuss why you made those revisions. Discuss your use of the They Say/I say text. Did the templates help you? Did the guidelines help you in your essay? Ive made a ton of revisions, from the thesis statement to the conclusion. There are too many to name. I actually have a 2 page dump file of the things I cut from my paper. Most of the things I

Biffert 9

cut were not exactly relevant to what I was trying to say. Rather than reworking my thesis, it was easier to cut. I think it would have been too broad with those addictions as well. I definitely like having an outline to draw from. The templates did help too. I dont know if I actually used one but it got me thinking. I tried to use them several times but I ended up cutting them. The text was helpful. It was good to know the information. I feel like it has become part of my writing. Given the situation the naysayer was a very large issue. The guidelines were very helpful. 4. What did you learn about research and the writing process from these assignments? I think research is a part of life now. Given our modern medias extreme bias its important to research any big issue. Since I was last in school, in 1998, research has gotten much easier. The internet has so much information on any subject you can think of. (that makes me sound really old) These reading and things have given me a good framework to spring off of. Its hard to say everything you want to say in a way that is coherent and convincing. 5. Any other thoughts or comments? I am beginning to hate the interface between mac and PC or maybe its just Pages. I think writing has gotten a lot looser in someways since last I wrote for school. Its funny how things change. Maybe its the informalities we get from texting or chatting.