A century ago, terribly unsanitary conditions and practices existed at dairy farms and in the milk-supply chain; dangerous additives mixed into the milk compounded the problem. Milk was a life-threatening substance for people, especially babies, to consume. Children died.
The Indiana state health commissioner at the time, Dr. John Hurty, led an intensive fight to make milk safe for consumption. Through regulation and state statutes, the additives were banned, and the cleanliness of the dairy industry greatly improved, better assuring the safety of milk. Important in that process was the eventual requirement for the pasteurization of milk. During its current session, the Indiana General Assembly may consider legislation making unpasteurized "raw" milk available to consumers. Oh my.
Pasteurization involves the heating of milk to kill bacteria, including listeria, Salmonella species (including typhoid fever), Brucella, Campylobacter, diphtheria, Staphylococcus aureus, tuberculosis species, Yersinia, and E. coli. Pasteurization assures that these pathogenic bacteria are killed, leaving only low levels of non-harmful bacteria.
Some of these organisms can cause more than just a bothersome case of diarrhea. Illnesses may affect anyone, but newborns, children, those with weakened immune systems, and the elderly are especially at risk for severe illness and death. Disorders include arthritis, dysentery, paralysis, kidney failure, meningitis and sepsis; pregnant women are at risk for miscarriage and fetal death.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report that drinking raw milk is 150 times more likely to cause illness and 13 times more likely to result in hospitalization as compared to consuming pasteurized dairy products. Unpasteurized milk and cheese were responsible for 82 percent of all dairy-related outbreaks between 1973 and 2009. Seventy-five percent of milk-borne illnesses occur in states that allow raw milk sales.
Advocates claim that raw milk contains more nutrients and helpful digestive bacteria, improves chronic conditions and is a healthier alternative. But there is no indication that pasteurization reduces the nutritional value of milk; causes lactose intolerance or allergic reactions; or that raw milk reduces illness, or is in any way healthier.
The dairy industry can be proud of the high standards it meets today in quality, purity and sanitation. Certainly, we are in a much different situation compared with the poor industry conditions and ignorance of the importance of sanitary practices that existed a century ago. The public is safeguarded by high regulatory food-industry standards, but the threat of food-borne illness remains.
Despite the best efforts of the food industry and public health agencies, we are all familiar with serious food-related disease outbreaks from contaminated meat, vegetables, fruits and processed foods. The CDC considers raw milk as one of the most hazardous of foods. Good modern hygienic practices can reduce but not eliminate the risk of contaminated milk. A dairy-farm environment, by its very nature, is a reservoir for illness-producing bacteria of animal origin.
Just last year raw milk-related outbreaks were reported in Maryland and Pennsylvania, and in 2010 an Indiana outbreak from an unregulated raw-milk dairy raised the ire of the Food and Drug Administration.
The Indiana Board of Animal Health recently released a report, ordered by the legislature, on the raw milk sales. The board recommended two alternatives: The first would make no changes in state law that currently requires all milk to be pasteurized. Good idea. The second would allow sales directly from farmers meeting minimum board sanitation requirements. Bad idea.
Creating a safe milk supply was one of the great public health successes of the 20th century. Legislation allowing unpasteurized milk on the market would be a dangerous step backward. Children will die. Dr. Hurty would not be pleased.
