Throughout my medical practice over the past 30 years, I have been a vocal advocate for public health to be actively involved in disease prevention, especially foodborne illness prevention. With at least 165 people sickened, 20 hospitalized, and 40% of the patients under the age of 5, I cannot understand why public health has remained silent, especially in the face of a dangerous drug called raw milk.
The more I think about this, the less I understand why public health would tolerate the scientific facts that producers of known high-risk foods are making hundreds of people sick, including the overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the same WGS patterns are found in humans and milk. Setting aside the “food freedom” argument for a moment, people should be able to eat and drink what they want and feed their children the same. Why not just give the public the facts and let them decide for themselves?
CDPH Mission Statement: “To promote the health and well-being of California’s diverse people and communities.”
CDPH failed in its mission by failing to warn the public that California raw milk producers had sickened at least 165 people (and likely more) in California and three other states with Salmonella, Campylobacter, or E. coli. And nearly 40% of those sickened were under the age of 5. Stool cultures from people who became sick with Salmonella had whole genome sequences that matched raw milk samples. These facts are a critical step in warning and educating the public about the risks. “[t]and advancing the health and well-being of California’s diverse population and communities.”
Instead, CDPH released this sad excuse yesterday, which still has nothing of value to say. “[t]and advancing the health and well-being of California’s diverse population and communities.”
CDPH takes its responsibility to protect public health seriously and works closely with all partners when a foodborne illness outbreak is confirmed. After being alerted by San Diego County Public Health last October about multiple Salmonellosis cases, CDPH conducted a robust public health investigation in collaboration with local authorities and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), which regulates California’s raw milk producers. On October 24, 2023, CDPH posted a food recall notice on its website (see attachment). (This notice was archived after the investigation was concluded.) The department also notified the public of the recall multiple times on social media (see links below). CDPH worked with CDFA to: The company asked Law Firm’s management to voluntarily recall the products. Law Firm was cooperative and announced the recall on October 25. Since most of the illnesses had been reported in San Diego County,The San Diego County Department of Public Health led the public notification process. October 20 and October 25The outbreak and case investigation conducted by CDPH ended on May 4, 2024. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is aware of the investigation and has assisted in coordinating cases in other states.
Interestingly, this week Harvard Health published a paper called “Why Drinking Raw Milk Is Dangerous.”
Despite claims to the contrary, drinking raw milk is not safe: Health experts say the bacteria in raw milk can cause serious illness.
What is raw milk?
Raw milk comes from animals such as cows and goats. It is not pasteurized to kill bacteria.
Some people believe that raw milk tastes better than pasteurized milk. Some health claims made about raw milk include: Lactose intoleranceTreats allergies and supports gut health. the study None of these myths have been proven true.
Drinking raw milk can be harmful to your health, explains Dr. Michelle Chang, an infectious disease specialist at Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital. “I’m concerned that drinking raw milk has become trendy,” Chang says. “There’s a reason that foods and beverages are pasteurized today.”
What are the health risks of consuming raw milk?
Raw milk can contain dangerous bacteria. Food poisoningMost people with food poisoning experience symptoms such as abdominal cramps, vomiting, and diarrhea.
Salmonella, E. coli, Listeria, and Campylobacter are bacteria found in raw milk that can cause food poisoning.
Anyone can get sick from drinking raw milk. However, it is especially at risk for the following people:
- Babies, Toddlers, Teenagers
- Pregnant women
- senior citizen
- People with weakened immune systems, such as those with cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and organ transplant recipients.
In the United States, it is illegal to sell raw milk across state lines, and raw milk is banned in about half of the states. Even in states that allow raw milk, most require that it come directly from a farmer.
Good on-farm hygiene practices can reduce the risk of contamination, but cannot guarantee that raw milk is free from dangerous bacteria.
Avian flu and raw milk
In March 2024, outbreaks of avian influenza in dairy cows occurred in several states, marking the first time that the avian influenza virus had been found in cattle.
There is limited information on whether the virus can be transmitted to humans through raw milk from infected cows. A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine reported that raw milk from infected cows contains high levels of the virus. The FDA has advised farmers not to produce or sell raw milk from cows that show symptoms of avian influenza or are infected with avian influenza.
in study In this test, designed to simulate commercial milk processing, the FDA and USDA found that the most commonly used pasteurization time and temperature requirements effectively inactivated avian influenza viruses in pasteurized milk.
What is pasteurization?
Pasteurization is a process that uses heat to kill bacteria in food. Pasteurized milk is heated to at least 145 degrees Fahrenheit and then rapidly cooled. The process was invented in 1864 by scientist Louis Pasteur.
Does pasteurized milk have the same nutritional benefits as raw milk?
Several studies have found no evidence that raw milk is more nutritious than pasteurized milk. CDC and FDAPasteurized milk has the same nutritional benefits as raw milk, but without the risks.
Dr Chan believes drinking raw milk means taking a huge risk to your health. “My advice would be to pay attention to the research, be aware of the risks associated with drinking raw milk, and avoid it,” he said.
Also today, Physician’s Weekly reported that “Less than Half of Adults Know About the Dangers of Raw Milk.”
A new survey finds that few Americans understand the health risks of drinking raw milk, so experts are redoubling their efforts to spread the information.
The move coincides with the discovery of the avian influenza virus in the milk of infected cows this spring. The H5N1 virus is circulating in wild birds around the world and has infected poultry and dairy cows in the U.S. As of June 21, there have been four cases of human infection with the H5N1 virus. influenza It has also been reported in the United States.
“It is important that people who plan to consume raw milk are aware that consuming raw milk can make them ill, and that pasteurization reduces the risk of milk-borne illnesses.” Patrick JamiesonDirector of the Annenberg Institute for Health and Risk Communication at the University of Pennsylvania.
Milk from cows, sheep, goats, and other animals that hasn’t been pasteurized to kill harmful bacteria is called raw milk or unpasteurized milk. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says that consuming unpasteurized milk or milk products can expose you to bacteria such as E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says commercial milk is pasteurized and therefore safe from the H5N1 virus, but raw milk is a different story.
In June, before the four cases of bird flu were reported, the Annenberg Institute investigated A total of 1,031 American adults were surveyed online and by telephone to assess their knowledge of the risks associated with unpasteurized milk.
While 47% of respondents knew that it is not safe to drink raw milk, 24% either incorrectly believed that pasteurizing milk does not effectively kill bacteria and viruses or were unsure if this was actually the case.
Respondents who were 65 or older, college educated, or leaning Democratic were more likely to understand the benefits of pasteurization and believe it doesn’t destroy nutrients in milk. People living in urban areas were more likely to think raw milk is less safe than those living in rural areas (49% vs. 32%).
Meanwhile, only 4 in 10 Republicans (37%) believe raw milk is less safe than pasteurized milk.
“The differences in attitudes between Democrats and Republicans about raw milk are hard to separate from those between rural and urban residents.” Kathleen Hall Jamison“People who live in rural areas are more likely to identify as Republicans and are also more likely to consume raw milk,” Annenberg Public Policy Center president John McClellan said in a center news release.
Another analysis showed that where you live doesn’t predict beliefs about pasteurization. Still, many Americans hold false beliefs about pasteurization.
Fewer than half (43%) knew that pasteurization “does not destroy” the nutrients in milk, while 16% believe it does and 41% were unsure.
Interestingly, 18-29 year olds are more likely than older adults to believe that pasteurizing milk destroys nutrients (25% vs. 5%), and Republicans are much more likely to believe this than Democrats (23% vs. 8%).
The survey was conducted June 7-10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.
(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News,click here)
