Raw Milk: Nutritional Value vs Health Risks

584 Words2 Pages

The idea of pasteurizing milk bagan in the 1920s, and later became an aspect of everyday life in the 1950s. Milk that has undergone this process is normally prefered since it is sterilized, therefore lowering the chance of human illness. However, it’s not the 1950s anymore, and the idea of pasteurizing milk has lost its luster for the people that now prefer raw milk. Unlike the milk that most Americans consume, raw milk has not been pasteurized, or quickly heated to a high temperature to kill harmful bacteria. In raw milk, these bacterias haven’t been removed, leaving people at risk. E. Coli, salmonella, and listeria are only some of the bacteria that raw milk carries, all of which can cause sickness, or even death. Common affects of consuming raw milk are diarrhea, stomach cramping, and vomiting, but it's the rare ones: kidney failure,paralysis, and death that causes raw milk to be illegal in half of the states and illegal to carry over state lines in its final form. Nevertheless, people still actively seek out and consume raw milk because they believe its nutritional values to be greater. Controversies surround this topic on whether organic food …show more content…

In 2001, Venice, California, the owner of a food market and two employees were arrested for selling raw milk products. The officers involved in this case were said to have pulled their guns out, which raised the question: was the necessary? Even though most studies agree that raw milk has no nutritional benefits over pasteurized milk,none mention how the crimes should be handled. The line on how much force should be used to handle a crime like this is blurred. While the milk products could be potentially deadly to people, should extreme force be used? Should these raw milk busts be treated like drug busts? Or should the crimes be treated with more slack? This is a controversy with no solid

Open Document