Raw versus pasteurized versus . . . . .
We were reminded again last Friday of the risks that consumers face when they opt to drink raw milk.
The Michigan Department of Community Health issued a public health alert on March 19th, after eight confirmed cases of Campylobacter infections were reported among residents of three counties in the state. The victims of this outbreak had consumed raw milk obtained from the Family Farms Cooperative in Vandalia, Michigan. through a cow-share program.
Cow share programs are used in many US states and Canadian provinces as a means to sidestep prohibitions against the retail sale of raw milk for human consumption. Instead of purchasing raw milk directly, consumers “buy” part ownership in a cow’s – or a dairy herd’s – output.
Although some states – California, for example – have legalized and regulated the retail sale of raw milk, FDA does not permit interstate shipment for human consumption of unpasteurized milk for retail sale. As far as FDA is concerned, consuming raw milk is a risky business. These risks include Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 and Campylobacter.
Why do some individuals insist on drinking raw milk – and serving it to their children – in spite of the microbiological risk? Mainly because of a concern that pasteurization, which requires heating the milk, destroys key nutrients present in raw milk and degrades the flavor of the fresh product.
What if there was a way to make raw milk microbiologically safe without heating it?
I’m not talking about irradiation. I’m not talking about adding chemicals. I’m not talking about adding “good” bacteria or bacteriophages to the milk.
I am referring to a process known as High Pressure Pasteurization (HPP). This technology is already in use in several sectors of the food industry. It has been applied to deli meats, fruit juices, deli salads, and produce. Recently, Nature’s Variety – a manufacturer of “raw” pet foods – announced that it had decided to incorporate HPP treatment into its manufacturing process in order to ensure the microbiological safety of its pet foods.
As far as I am aware, no dairies have adopted HPP as an alternative to conventional heat pasteurization for fluid milk. But a literature search turned up a smattering of tantalizing research studies. I would be surprised if the manufacturers of HPP equipment were not funding research into this application of their technology.
Perhaps, some day the raw milk versus pasteurized milk debate will become history – made obsolete by a new technology that doesn’t rely on either heat or irradiation.
eFoodAlert 
OK, Europe and North America are different!
LikeLike
Are you sure? As far as I know, the process is the following: the milk that is first skimmed, then the skim milk is micro-filtered while the fat phase is UHT treated, and finally the two phases are mixed and packed.
LikeLike
From the Natrel Filtered Milk website Q&A section (http://www.natrel.ca/english/faq/NNPFilteredOrganicMilk.html#C06):
“Natrel Nature~Pure Organic Milk does undergo an additional process to improve the quality of our organic milk. It is gently filtered to remove over 98 more times more bacteria than milk that has only been pasteurized so that it stays and tastes fresher longer than regular organic milk.
The filter does not remove any of the nutrients in the milk, so nutritionally it is equal to regular organic milk. The filtration process does not affect the organic status of our milk, and our organic milk plant is certified by an independent organization called the OCQV, which has been active since 1997.
Like all milk in Canada, including organic, Natrel Nature~Pure Organic Milk is pasteurized to destroy pathogenic bacteria.”
Phyllis
LikeLike
Another pasteurization process without heating or irradiation is microfiltration, already widely used in US and Canada.
O. Cerf
LikeLike
This is true. In Canada, however, I have only seen milk that has been microfiltered AND pasteurized by heat. A less severe heat-pasteurization is used that for traditional pasteurized milk, resulting in a better flavour.
Phyllis
LikeLike
I think that there is a problem of credibility of public health agencies here. When I was young many years ago I took a 2 year agriculture diploma and we were taught that the milk from the cows on our farms could be rendered safe by applying enough heat equivalent to pasteurization. We were also taught the risk assocaited with consuming raw milk. The problem as I see it that to many regulators want to protect what they consider ‘the consumer’ without sharing enough information. I published a letter on the subject a few years ago:
SCIENTISTS HURT THEMSELVES BY ABUSING CONCEPT OF ‘SAFE’
June 24, 2003
The Ottawa Citizen
A15
G.W. (Bill) Riedel of Ottawa writes regarding, What is the risk?, June 21,
to say that the term “zero risk” is essentially an oxymoron, since a product
or condition that has zero risk is clearly safe by definition. It is
interesting how risk communicators frequently spin risk and abuse the term
“safe,” especially in the area of public-health scientific-product
regulatory activities. For example, we are all told by public-health
regulatory scientists that each year, an estimated 30 Canadians die of and
two million of us come down with microbial food-borne disease. Yet the same
regulatory scientific community assures us in the 2000 Canadian government
publication Food Safety and You, that “There’s a good reason why the foods
we eat in Canada are safe.”
Clearly, the risk of death due to microbial food-borne disease in Canada is
roughly one person per million per year.
As a food microbiologist myself, Riedel says he sees two major problems
associated with this careless use of the term “safe.” First, it shows
callous disrespect for those individuals who died from these risks and
essentially denies their life, and it appears unkind to their surviving
relatives. Second, it is clearly credibility-destroying behaviour by the
regulatory and scientific community. Is it any surprise that our credibility
as scientists is being eroded?
While we like to blame the media, Riedel says he believes that we members of
the regulatory/scientific community are entirely to blame.
LikeLike