English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

What are the pros and cons of homogenized milk vs. raw for toddlers. Does pasturization has cons also??

2007-03-07 06:35:08 · 3 answers · asked by Tatiana D 2 in Food & Drink Other - Food & Drink

i meant HOMOGENIZED vs. NOT-HOMOGENIZED :) I'm pretty clear that non-pasteurized milk is not going to reside in my fridge :))

2007-03-07 07:43:26 · update #1

3 answers

Homogenization is a process of breaking up the fat globules in milk so that they don't separate from the rest of the milk into a fat-rich layer of cream. I think your question isn't homogenized vs. raw, it should be pasteurized vs. raw. Pasteurization is the process of heating raw milk to either 147 degrees F for at least half an hour, or to 162 degrees F for at least 16 seconds, in order to destroy pathogenic bacteria that may be present in the milk. (http://www.foodsci.uoguelph.ca/dairyedu/pasteurization.html).

Raw milk can contain pathogenic bacteria like streptococcus, staphylococcus, and e. coli as a result of contamination during the milking process (if you've ever observed the way cows are kept and milked, you'll know that it's almost impossible to prevent contamination from cow feces from occurring). Tuberculosis and brucellosis are two far more serious diseases that have been associated with milk, but which are now virtually absent due to extreme diligence in practicing testing of dairy herds.

Proponents of raw foods argue that pasteurization destroys at least some of the nutritional value of raw milk. Some of their arguments can be found here: http://www.realmilk.com/ http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/

The decision to drink raw milk is a highly personal one. I believe that as long as the producers of raw milk are subject to rigid standards of inspection and certification of their product to assure that it is pathogen-free, such as the standards specified here, http://rawusa.org/standards.html, the decision on raw vs. pasteurized should be left to the consumer. I personally would not give a toddler raw milk to drink, but I wouldn't condemn those who do.

It's important to understand three things in the raw vs. pateurized debate:

First, that at the time that pasteurization became standard for milk and milk products, conditions on dairy farms were frequently deplorable with regard to cleanliness and the health of the cows. You have to read about some of the historical conditions to believe them. Cows were not monitored for health concerns, milking was usually done by hand and the milkers were not subject to health overviews or sanitary standards. Things were pretty grotesque, in terms of any attempt at sanitation and hygienic practices.

Second, when pasteurization became standard, refrigeration of dairy products from producer to consumer could not be assured. This made it possible for milk that started out with a very low level of contamination to become more contaminated as bacteria multiplied. Refrigeration doesn't kill bacteria but it does limit the amount they can multiply.

Third, at the time that pasteurization became standard, our understanding of the role bacteria played in disease was very poorly understood, and the tests we had available to determine the presence of bacteria in milk were nonexistant or very limited. Presenting the public with safe, drinkable raw milk requires that sophisticated testing be conducted and that reliable results can be quickly obtained.

(FWIW, the production of certified raw milk is more expensive than the production of milk that is pasteurized, which means that fewer people can afford it. If the entire milk supply was presented as certified raw, many people would not be able to afford milk for their children, very much to the detriment of the general health of the children. Keeping milk affordable is very important.)

I think that as long as we can diligently keep the raw milk supply reasonably safe, drinking raw milk is a personal choice.

2007-03-07 07:23:39 · answer #1 · answered by Karin C 6 · 0 0

1. Trish and Mickie are more experienced then the other two. 2. Big Show woul be the man to beat in this match, but unfortunately I can't see any of the others beating him. 3. Booker T gets hit by rolling thunder, then RVD climbs the ladder and hits a frog splash. But Carlito then hits RVD with a back cracker, but he himself turns around only to get speared by Edge. Edge grins, but then gets tripped onto the ropes, by Rey, who hits the 619 then West Coast pop. Mysterio climbs the ladder, but as he gets to the top, Randy climbs up to, and RKO's him off the top of the ladder. Then Randy groggily gets to his feet,a dn wins the money in the bank. 4. Nitro and Mercury because hey are better individually and working as a team. 5. Undertaker would absolutely demolish Kane. 6. Benoit, because Umaga has no submissions! 7. The WWE script writers: Cena 5 Khali 0 Me: Cena 2 Khali 3 8. Kurt Angle eliminates Batista. Angle is eliminated by Lashley. Masters is eliminated by Lashley. Lashley is eliminated by HBK. Kennedy is eliminated by HBK. Here is your winner the Heartbreak kid Shawn Michaels. Have a star.

2016-03-28 22:40:45 · answer #2 · answered by Wendy 4 · 0 0

Yes!

2007-03-11 07:42:36 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Been there 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers