Can drinking raw milk make a person sick?
Raw milk describes milk that has not undergone the pasteurization process. As pasteurization removes disease-causing germs from milk, it is not advisable for people to drink raw milk.
Raw milk, also known as unpasteurized milk, comes directly from animals, such as cows, goats, and sheep. Raw milk has not undergone pasteurization. This is a process that involves heating the milk to kill potentially harmful bacteria.
Proponents of consuming raw milk may suggest that it provides additional health benefits. However, pasteurized milk offers the same nutritional benefits, without the risk of raw milk consumption. While good practices on farms may help to reduce contamination in milk, they cannot guarantee safety from bacteria without the pasteurization process.
As such, due to the potential risks of consuming raw milk, it is advisable for people to instead drink milk that has undergone pasteurization to avoid the risk of milk-borne illnesses.Pasteurization is the process of using heat to destroy pathogens present in food. The most common method of pasteurization in the U.S. is High Temperature Short Time (HTST) pasteurization. This method uses metal plates and hot water to raise milk temperatures to at least 161° F for no less than 15 seconds, then rapidly cooling the milk. This process kills the potentially harmful bacteria that may be present in raw milk.
Some evidence suggests that it may be possible to produce raw milk with a lower risk of milk-borne illness. However, no scientific research supports that any possible benefit of raw milk outweighs the potential risks or safety concerns, particularly for certain people. people aged 65 or over
pregnant people
infants and small children
people with a weakened immune system
Proponents of drinking raw milk suggest that it tastes better, is nutritionally superior, and may also provide more health benefits than pasteurized milk. They note that these benefits may include:
However, the FDA emphasize that there is no scientific evidence to support these claims. Additionally, as there are no federal standards for raw milk, and it does not undergo pasteurization, there is no way to guarantee that the raw milk is safe to consume.
The FDA highlight that individuals consuming raw milk are instead at a higher risk of becoming ill or even dying from foodborne illness due to drinking raw milk.
To avoid foodborne illnesses and other potentially serious health risks from drinking raw milk, people should instead choose to consume pasteurized milk and dairy products. People can check the labels of milk products to ensure they have undergone pasteurization.
Other tips to avoid food poisoning can include : refrigerating perishable foods at a suitable temperature to slow bacterial growth
avoid leaving perishable foods out for long periods
throwing away any expired or spoiled foods
Raw milk is milk that has not undergone the pasteurization process. This is a process that uses heat to kill potentially harmful bacteria that may be present in food. As such, health experts do not advise consuming raw milk.
Proponents suggest that raw milk may possess additional health benefits. However, no scientific evidence supports these claims. Consuming raw milk can make people very ill, particularly those with weaker immune systems, such as children, older adults, pregnant people, and immunocompromised people.
Infectious Diseases / Bacteria / Viruses
Nutrition / Diet
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Map reveals states polluted with toxin that may cause autism... do you live in one?
California and Oregon are America's hotspots for dangerous air toxins that may lead to autism, a study suggests. Researchers at Washington University of St Louis collected 25 years' worth of data on submicron (PM1) air pollution, particles less than one millionth of a meter wide and one-sixth the size of human blood cells. While scientists have long tracked the health effects of its cousin fine particulate matter (PM2.5), emitted in the air via fossil fuels, PM1 has largely flown under the scientific radar. Though little-known, PM1 has been shown to increase the risk of heart attacks, lung cancer and dementia. Health agencies are reportedly conducting a series of studies to find out if environmental pollution can lead to autism, which has surged in the US over the last two decades. In the new study, a map reveals concentrations of PM1 were highest in the Los Angeles, Phoenix and Portland areas, along with parts of Idaho, New Mexico and Texas. Less densely populated states without crowded cities, such as Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming had the smallest concentrations. The researchers did not provide exact numbers, but the data suggests larger cities in the western US along the west coast and south are the most at risk of harmful pollutants like PM1. They also said the new report could be one of the first to look specifically at PM1. Jay Turner, study co-author, said: 'When EPA first promulgated a fine PM air quality standard in 1997, there was considerable discussion about regulating PM 1 or PM 2.5. 'For numerous reasons, including but not limited to the lack of health impact studies for PM1 compared to studies for PM2.5, the latter was chosen. 'This study provides a comprehensive, nationwide dataset to examine PM1 impacts on health.' California, which had higher concentrations of PM1, also has one of the highest rates of autism in the country, according to the CDC's latest data. An April report from the agency found one in 19 children in California have been diagnosed with autism, 48 percent higher than one in 31 nationwide. However, the report only looked at children ages four through eight, so it's unclear how many older children and teens were diagnosed. Nationwide, autism rates have surged from about one in 150 in the early 2000s. Health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr announced earlier this year a series of studies that will look into 'environmental toxins' he believes could be causes, including pesticides and food additives, and promised 'there will be an answer for the American people' by September. Particulate matter has been shown in recent studies to raise the risk of autism by triggering inflammation in nerve tissue and possibly passing from mom to placenta to fetus in utero. In the new study, published Monday in The Lancet Planetary Health, researchers calculated PM1 levels based on measuring seven components found in PM2.5: sulphate, ammonium, nitrate, organic matter, black carbon, dust and sea salt. These pollutants can come from natural disasters like volcanic eruptions, wildfires and dust storms, as well as human-generated sources like construction sites, burning fossil fuels and vehicle emissions. Chi Li, first study author and research assistant professor, said: 'Putting the seven species together, we can calculate the total PM1 concentration over the country.' PM1 levels were calculated based on biweekly estimates from 1998 through 2022. In addition to areas like California and Oregon, parts of the Midwest and eastern US like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania also appeared to have higher concentrations of PM1, according to the map. The researchers said natural disasters like wildfires may have contributed to elevated levels. A 2020 study found the area burned by wildfires in California has doubled in the last 20 years compared to the two decades before that. More urban areas like Los Angeles and Portland also produce more PM1 due to higher traffic, construction and a greater concentration of densely packed buildings. Randall Martin, a professor of energy environmental and chemical engineering at WashU, said: 'These data offer new information to advance understanding of how to improve air quality and health.'
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Newest Covid variant causing ‘razor blade throat.' What to know
A new Covid variant spreading around the U.S. may come with an incredibly unfortunate symptom now commonly referred to as 'razor blade throat.' NB.1.8.1, which is also known as or 'Nimbus,' is now nearly the most prevalent omicron lineage tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As the name implies, infection may lead to an incredibly painful sore throat, according to experts. Other symptoms, though, are more typical of a Covid infection, including fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, and the loss of taste or smell. 'A 'razor blade throat' is a very descriptive term describing severe sore throat pain — as if their throat is covered with razor blades — (like) with various viral infections,' Dr. Aaron Glatt, chair of the department of medicine and chief of infectious diseases at Mount Sinai South Nassau in New York, told 'While not specific to Covid-19, this expression has been used to describe sore throat symptoms in some patients with the most recent Covid-19 variant,' he said. But although the new omicron variant may result in a painful infection, experts say that it does not appear to be more severe than others. 'Every time you get a new strain, it always is a little bit more transmissible than what came before it,' Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UCSF infectious disease specialist, told SFGATE. 'Just like a pop song is more catchy when it rises to the top of the charts. And this particular one, Nimbus, is not just proportionally higher right now in California, the speed at which it's rising in the charts is also high … but it's not more severe.' Just how virulent it is remains a topic of discussion. 'What sets NB.1.8.1 apart is how quickly it spreads,' explains Dr. Magdalena Sobieszczyk, chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, said in a statement. 'It has a genetic advantage: mutations that make it easy for it to bind to receptors on human cells. The mutations could allow NB.1.8.1 to spread faster and, therefore, infect more people.' The World Health Organization has designated Nimbus as a 'variant under monitoring,' and considers the public health risk low globally. Current vaccines are expected to remain effective. But the longevity of the availability of Covid vaccines in the U.S. remains murky. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said last month that shots are no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women. He has also removed members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's vaccine advisory panel and replaced them with people who have been skeptical of Covid vaccines and mandates.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘These deaths are not inevitable': state gun control laws reduce children's firearm deaths, study shows
Guns have been the leading cause of death among US children since 2020. A new study shows a clear path to addressing this scourge and saving kids' lives: state gun control laws. The study, published this month in Jama Pediatrics, reveals that states which enacted stricter gun control measures following the 2010 McDonald v Chicago supreme court ruling – a landmark decision that struck down Chicago's ban on handguns and, in effect, expanded the second amendment nationwide – have seen a relative decrease in firearm deaths among children aged up to 17. By contrast, states that expanded gun freedoms have seen a notable increase in kids' deaths from gun violence, including by homicide, by suicide and from accidents. This means that commonsense gun policies make a difference when it comes to keeping kids safe, said Nick Suplina, senior vice-president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety. 'This study sends a message that lawmakers that refuse to take action or who further loosen gun laws are putting kids' lives in peril,' he said. 'That's a very powerful outcome for an academic study.' To conduct their study, researchers divided states into three categories – least permissive, more permissive and most permissive – based on the strength of their gun control laws. They then used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to look into individual states' rates of pediatric firearm deaths (deaths from gun violence among children ages 0-17) over a 12-year span. What they found was a striking degree of overlap among states based on legislation enacted. In more permissive states, such as Mississippi and New Hampshire, pediatric death rates rose substantially more than expected, especially among children of color. '[We saw] so many excess deaths over and above what would have been expected,' said Jeremy Faust, an emergency room physician and assistant professor of medicine at Harvard University, and the study's lead author. But in states that passed stricter laws – such as background checks, permitting and safe-storage requirements – rates either stayed stagnant or fell. That finding surprised Faust, who anticipated that every state would see at least some increase since the number of kids killed by guns in the US has risen so sharply over the past decade. California, New York and Maryland, all of which have assault weapon bans and safe-storage laws, saw decreased rates of pediatric firearm mortality. And Rhode Island, which requires would-be gun owners to pass a firearm safety course to buy a handgun, saw a 60% drop in gun-related deaths among children. 'These deaths are not inevitable,' said Shriya Bhat, a second-year molecular biology student at Harvard and an author of the study. 'Policy choices matter, and we can learn from the places that have kept kids safer.' Gun policy experts say that research like this, which treats gun violence as a public health concern and considers the impact of on-the-books legislation from a scientific perspective, is desperately needed. 'The insights of the medical community are vital to educating policymakers and the public about the need to address the public health crisis fueled by unregulated access to firearms,' said Nick Wilson, senior director for gun violence prevention at the Center for American Progress. (The White House recently removed former surgeon general Vivek Murthy's advisory on gun violence as a public health issue, and has also slashed funding for gun violence research.) Experts also stress the need for lawmakers to translate knowledge into action. That means prioritizing measures that keep all of society safe from gun violence, such as universal background checks, as well as laws that protect kids specifically, such as safe-storage regulations. 'We really need policymakers to step up,' said Kelly Drane, research director at the Giffords Law Center. Suplina added that moving the needle on policy would require dampening the influence of the country's for-profit gun lobby, which perpetuates the narrative that guns make a society safer – a myth he hopes this study can help dispel. 'Literally the exact opposite is true,' he said. 'If more guns made us safer, the US would be the safest country in the world by far. Instead, we have a homicide rate that's 25 times that of our peer nations.' Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion But a lack of gun control legislation doesn't mean individuals can't change their own behaviors to keep kids safe. Parents who own guns can safely store their firearms and ask other parents whether there are guns in the house before permitting a playdate, said Drane, much like a parent might ask if another family has a fence around their pool. 'It doesn't have to be a conversation about whether or not it's OK to own firearms, but just knowing that there's a plan in place to keep kids safe in the home is really important.' Nonetheless, researchers and experts are hopeful that political gulfs can be crossed by focusing on how policies can save the lives of children. 'We've seen a lot of public health successes that have been bridged by focusing on the impact of public health threats on children,' said Drane. 'I'm hopeful that research like this can help change minds.' For Faust, who witnessed children die from gunshot wounds first-hand while training in a Queens, New York, trauma center, addressing the epidemic of gun violence is deeply tied to his work as a physician. 'I am interested in how choices we make as a society can have a massive impact on the way we live and die,' he said. 'When you save the life of a kid, think about the decades of life you are giving back.'
