Talk:Raw milk/Archive 1

Article is overly debate-framed
I am disturbed by the increasing use of "supporters" and "opponents" as the context in which a topic is presented. The topic is "Raw Milk"; it would make sense to define what that means and to elaborate on the technical details of processing, the biological changes that arise, and the advantages and disadvantages as a product.

I urge you to present facts in a context of reasoned discussion, and to avoid debative contexts (pro/con perspective), which may cause even uncontested facts to appear as opinion, and the overall article as little more than commentary.

At a minimum the debative context, if insisted upon, should be relegated to the bottom of the article. But I really don't see the purpose in it, for the debative context is essentially antithetical to the reasoned context, a reflection of a poorly researched article in essence. --pacoit

I agree. Wikipedia is supposed provide encyclopedia entires, not debates - Lindsay


 * On behalf of the other active registered editors here at Wikipedia, I thank you both for your comments, and I encourage you to become more actively involved in Wikipedia. We need more people who care about the contents.


 * Wikipedia, by policy, is a tertiary source. Someone does research. Someone else reports on that research. We tell you what is said on the subject. As a former newspaper editor and publisher, I can assure you that there are few uncontested facts in this world, and fewer still that deserve to be uncontested.


 * Milk is not a simple chemical. It not varies from species to species, but breed to breed, cow to cow, and day to day. Some pasteurization heats the milk more rapidly than others, some raises it to different temperatures, some holds it at the elevated temperature longer than others, and some processes chill it more rapidly than others. There is different homogenization equipment, and different operator techniques. Anyone who claims to know everything that happens when you pasteurize and homogenize milk is deluded.


 * And it's not just knowing what happens. It's knowing what the consequences are. Is the milk consumed 2 days later? Is it consumed 6 days later? Does it spend 20 minutes in the trunk of a car 20F weather, or 2 hours in that same trunk when it's 101F outside? Is it a beverage consumed with oreos, or is it used to make brown gravy?


 * Well-informed, highly-intelligent people can disagree as to whether pasteurization and homogenization are essential to a safe milk supply, or if they are antithetical to health. Editors working on this article fall into both groups - but for the most part, they concur with everything said in the article.


 * Although not stated as a policy, it's an underlying principle that the truth will out. We give the user the benefit of verifiable facts, presented from a neutral point of view. Fox News used to advertise, "We give you the facts and you decide", but at Wikipedia, that's something we actually do.


 * Again, I thank you for taking an interest - and encourage you to carry your involvement a step further. It's extremely difficult to write well. Collaborative writing that insists on verifiability is even more challenging. It's also tremendously rewarding, though, when you others find your contributions worthy, and they expand further on them. And as a hobby, it's a whole lot cheaper than buying a $40,000 bass boat.... ClairSamoht 01:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Well my two cents are that Wikipedia is not WikiDebatepedia, but if we can present, in a neutral point of view -- the verifiable facts -- then, as User:ClairSamoht stated, we'll let the reader decide. But what if the facts are incomplete, i.e., research suggests...? Well, then at least we can present the incomplete research in its entirety, without inferring its meaning from the research. Let the reader read it herself and come to her own conclusion. Rhetth 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This article does not provide a neutral viewpoint, some links to "verifiable facts" are not entirely verifiable at all; in all honesty and in my view it seems the article leaves contradicting "hints" to prove or disprove a specific point. I wanted to learn more about raw milk, not enter into a debate or be carefully pushed towards one opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.156.73.135 (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the last comment, which is why I tried to delete the reference to the Scientific American article, which only cites the previous reference as their source for contradictory research. The citations are circular. Furthermore, the first reference is just a link to the brief FDA webpage on raw milk dangers that provides no references to published research on the subject, whatsoever. Claiming "This latter statement is not supported by all research" and linking to two citations looks impressive. But they are empty citations and should be removed until they can be replaced with actually verifiable research results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.20.220 (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting framing of the debate. Unfortunately, that's not how we approach WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS issues. Until medical consensus is that there are significant health benefits lost, then the info stays. --Ronz (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ronz, I read the info at the bottom and did not realize the refs had just been deleted. I was careless. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. --Ronz (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bacteria necessary to cheese flavour
I removed this claim:

The bacteria found in raw milk are essential to the flavors of many cheeses.

The referenced article does not present any evidence in support of the claim. It merely asserts that raw milk is “Milk straight from the cow, still harboring all the wonderful bacteria that constitute the soul of great cheese.”. That does not constitute a citation, it is mere repetition of an unsubstantiated claim. 118.209.40.203 (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

calves
The article states that proponents believe that calves fed pasteurized milk die before reaching maturity. What is the basis for this? Have there been studies done about this, or is it anecdotal experience (and if so, whose)? Or urban legend? Though I have seen this suggested elsewhere, I have never seen a documentation or evidence brought to back it up. An encyclopedia should give this, however. Hgilbert 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's contents aren't meant to be encyclopedic in scope. It contains only that which others have reported elsewhere. It is an undisputed fact that proponents make that claim. The claim itself is not necessarily valid, however.


 * The extension service in Wisconsin recommends pasteurizing waste milk given to calves. It would be *awfully* cruel to pasteurize the milk the calf suckles, obviously. Waste milk consists of colostrum and transition milk, which should be better raw, if the raw milk arguments hold. It also includes mastitic milk, which surely ought not be fed to calves without pasteurization, and probablyu ought not be fed to them at all. Finallyu, it includes milk which is unsalable because of antibiotic content, which raw milk adherents would argue makes it chemically-unraw. You can read the Wisconsin document at http://www.wisc.edu/dysci/uwex/heifmgmt/pubs/pasteurizingwastemilk.pdf ClairSamoht 04:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From the FDA ""Pasteurization will destroy some enzymes," says Barbara Ingham, Ph.D., associate professor and extension food scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "But the enzymes that are naturally present in milk are bovine enzymes. Our bodies don't use animal enzymes to help metabolize calcium and other nutrients.""

It is conceivable that the bovine enzymes destroyed are important to calves. However, the pro/con argument is written in context of health to humans. If the excerpt were in any way factual, then I could see leaving it. However it is a stray comment that has no place in a section pertaining to the health "debate" in context of humans. Nathan Forrest 01:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article cleanup
"...of male patients with heart disease.'2 Homogenization became widespread..." Which kind of typo is that "2"? I'm out of ideas so I won't fix it so far. saimhe 15:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I thought I would ask the person who introduced it. Turns out it was me. The person who introduced it thinks it was just a stray keystoke introduced by clmusy typing. You have heard about clmusy tpyists, haven't you? That 2 has been banished to /dev/null ClairSamoht 02:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
Among other things, this article doesn't use inline citations, but I didn't feel that was enough to warrant another tag. Anyway, look at... "Some people say that pasteurized milk converts"... "some in turn link to autism"... "Proponents believe that it preserves the natural"... (which proponents)... etc. etc. ugen64 05:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content isn't necessarily true. It is, however, verifiable. I could come through here and throw out all the claims I believe invalid, and eliminate all the weasel words on the claims I believe valid. Someone else, though, could come along twenty minutes later with opposing opinions, and throw out all the claims I make, restoring and deweaseling the claims I threw out. What benefit is there to an edit war?
 * If you're looking for someone who will sort out the claims, and tell you what's what, you don't want Wikipedia, you want Sylvia Browne. Raw milk is a controversial subject, and the best Wikipedia can do is to fairly present the controversy. ClairSamoht 07:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am simply saying that each claim should be accompanied by a citation - of course this is a controversial topic, which is why I think the article needs citations. ugen64 23:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Questionable Reference
I was going to add this WPost article from last week, but the article seems really biased even though it includes interviews with opponents of raw milk.

"If properly refrigerated, raw milk will keep 8 days, versus the 5-6 days for the much-handled pasteurized milk purchased in a supermarket." This sounds wrong. I lived on a dairy farm and none of our milk lasted eight days. Is there a source for this?

read. . "properly refrigerated"... Raw milk im buyign at the moment often lasts 10 days - sometimes 12. The longer ones have not been opened and carton been in fridge the whole time, .. no in out, no sitting on the table for an hour... (yes yes!! below!.. after that time it does go sour- as oposed to rancid, quite plesant to drink - not in coffee though, like drinking yogurt)  Cilstr 17:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Real Milk Shelf Life
My personal experience is that real (raw) milk, when properly refrigerated, is good for drinking 10-12 days. After that, it sours, and is still okay for cooking or baking. And although my experience is anecdotal, it is my experience, and it works for me. I know that the quality of the milk depends on many factors, perhaps the breed of cow has an impact on this? Mijari 01:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

^^ I second this, but would warn also that the 10-12 days is from time of milking not from the date purchased. (I have noticed some stores now carry it on the shelves.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.59.249 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Pasteurization" section has the subsections "Views by supporters" and "Views by opponents". Without reading the contents, I'd assume that this means "supporters of pasteurization" and "opponents of pasteurization", and indeed some of the points made seem to accord with this; but then other points seem to go the other way, with it apparently meaning "supporters of raw milk" and "opponents of raw milk". All told, it's quite confusing, and comes off as self-contradictory (though I'm not sure if it's actually self-contradictory, or if it just seems that way). —RuakhTALK 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 'processed' from the summary.
The term 'processed' seems to carry a connotation of 'bad'. Some (like me!) consider "whole foods" to be more more nutritious than "processed foods", and so describing "raw milk" as "milk that has not been processed" seems to be biased in favor of the nutrative value of raw milk. In an attempt to eliminate that bias, I rephrased the opening sentence. — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 06:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring
Considering Talk:Raw_milk and the tags in the article, I restructured the article, extracting some segments in to new pages: Health effects of homogenized milk and United States raw milk debate.

There's still plenty of work to be done on each of these three pages to get them up to Wikipedia standards. Have at it! — JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 06:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This not a debate only for the USA, what references can you provide to proove that? In most parts of Europe Raw Milk is widely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk) 20:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The English Royal Family only drinks raw milk. The Weston Price Foundation website summarizes all the state government policies as well as a few forigne countries. Most of Europe is covered.--Ryan Close (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Listeria
There is an blog post (in French) about the probability that a cheese cause Listeriosis.

It may not be a reliable source but it is interesting. The blogger says that : -60% of listeriosis outbreaks are caused by pasteurized-milk cheeses -82.9% of cheeses sold in France are pasteurized-milk cheeses then, using probability theory, he concludes that Listeriosis is about 3.23 times more likely to occur with raw-milk cheese than with pasteurized-milk cheese. Arronax50 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of raw-milk-caused sickness to sickness due to fish/shellfish
The FDA reports that, in 2002, consuming raw milk and raw milk products caused 200 Americans to become ill in any manner [9]. In comparison, a 1999 CDC report showed that consuming undercooked fish and shellfish causes approximately 8,000 cases of Vibrio illness annually.

The above comparison is completely misleading. Talk about comparing apples to oranges. People in America consume much more fish/shellfish than they do raw milk making a simple "number" comparison useless. Its a perfect example of how people use statistics to warp the truth. (although its a lame attempt). That whole paragraph should be wiped from this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.123.212 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved to talk for discussion
This information was added by the same editor to multiple articles. My concern is the last part of the statement. It uses weasel words and gives medical advise. --Ronz (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Raw milk, with its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme and Lactobacilli bacteria intact, may allow people who suffer from lactose intolerance to give it another try."
 * http://aem.asm.org/cgi/reprint/34/2/185.pdf
 * de Vrese, M. et al, 2001. Probiotics- compensation for lactase insufficiency. Am J Clin Nutr 73:421S-429s


 * Third opinion: Agreed. "give it another try" is pushing some kind of POV, or is just weasel-y in general. Change it to something like "may allow people who suffer from lactose intolerance to drink it." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 02:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Without a source, I think that any advice violates WP:NOTHOWTO, especially when it is unsourced and might make people sick if followed. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Other articles where this was added: --Ronz (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lactose
 * Lactose intolerance
 * Milk allergy
 * United States raw milk debate

The editor who added the material, Phil Ridley, has changed it slightly: "Raw milk, unlike pasteurized milk, has its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme and Lactobacillus bacteria intact. Raw milk may therefore be an alternative to pasteurized milk for those who have trouble digesting the lactose in pasteurized milk and suffer from lactose intolerance." This doesn't change the need for a source that meets WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've requested that the other editors join this discussion. I'm withholding my specific comments on the latest round of changes given that I think WP:MEDRS is still the solution. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the information from the other two articles in the hope that we can focus our efforts on just one article. I have updated the FDA information with a better source, using a direct quote. I've also made a request for assistance --Ronz (talk) 02:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not a tremendously experienced WP editor compared to Ronz, so I can't provide much guidance as to procedure, but I was concerned when I saw the content as well. The FDA is a widely-recognized and reputable organization and is making strongly-worded, explicit statements as to the harm or death on the issue and as to whether or not these statements are true.  Sticking unqualified medical claims (especially on the "lactose intolerance" page) does rather seem to me to imply that this is mainstream medicine consensus.  If the argument is that "may allow" is a very low bar and could thus be true...well, I agree with Ronz that that's weasel wording, and hardly the standard that any useful encyclopedia or reference work would use.  My major concerns are (a) the fact that these claims could be harmful if followed, and so error on the side of safety and heavy qualification of any such statement is preferable to under-qualification and (b) I think that the text as originally written by Phil Ridley is misleading as to what current consensus is. Finally, I would suggest that perhaps WP:ADVOCACY is relevant here, particularly "Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it..."  Mark7-2 (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is no consensus, that is why there is a page on the debate. Secondly, the FDA document, when referring to death, is describing its opinion about the risks of raw milk in general. It describes at the beginning that lactose intolerance IS NOT an allergy, and it does not state anywhere that raw milk will cause death in somebody who is lactose intollerant, because of their intolerance. The FDA states within the document that the only risk is discomfort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion. It would be helpful if you used a Wikipedia account, though not necessary.
 * You've not addressed any of my concerns with your comments, so I've reverted the content. If my concerns are not clear, I'd be happy to elaborate further on any specific areas you identify. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is my first real post, so be kind. Milk doesn't contain lactase. http://www.milkfacts.info/Nutrition%20Facts/Milk%20and%20Human%20Health.htm is a great source from Cornell University. The source for the comment "Raw milk, unlike pasteurized milk, has its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme[3] and Lactobacillus bacteria[4] intact." is not even discussing this subject. It is regarding the use of certain additives to help aid the digestablility of lactose. I would make the edit on the page myself, but I think I'd likely screw it up. Emthies (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I'm not sure I follow.  Are you saying that the references do not support the information provided?  --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the change has now been made, but yes. That reference had little to nothing to do with the claim.  The reference stated if you mixed bacteria that produces lactase into milk, then the lactose will be partially broken down and easier for people to digest.  It never claimed that there was lactase in raw milk, which would not be accurate.Emthies (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Current version (5 Jun 09) for reference:

"Raw milk, unlike pasteurized milk, has its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme and Lactobacillus bacteria intact, and lactase can be purchased separately, in supplement form, to help overcome lactose intolerance . However, America's Federal Food and Drugs Administration states, "Drinking raw milk will still cause uncomfortable symptoms in people who are correctly diagnosed as being lactose intolerant."."

<Hmmm, yes, one source is from the 70s and doesn't mention lactase being present in milk. The Cornell source that Emthies helpfully provided specifically says

Methinks it needs removing. Bigger digger (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the entire paragraph, because we don't have a source indicating that claims of helping the symptoms of lactose intolerance are part of the debate. If we can find such a source, then the FDA statement should be added back with it. --Ronz (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Another rewrite
medical advice deleted, references added, other articles where this was added have been removed pending discussion, please provide comments on the amended text, noting for example, that sources such as the Lancet are referenced, regarding the allergy section, note that a distinction is made between intollerance, which the FDA state causes only discomfort, and milk allergy, which is dealt with in its own wiki page, which has been linked to: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk • contribs)  19:38, 26 May 2009

Amended text with old versions collapsed:

Raw Milk Safety
The Raw vs Pasteurized Debate places the health benefits against the disease threat. Government Agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous other worldwide regulatory agencies say that pathogens from raw milk make it unsafe to consume,. However, raw milk advocates like Weston A. Price Foundation in its "Real Milk" campaign claim that appropriate animal husbandry, and milk storage methods are sufficient to control the risk, particularly in the case of raw milk that is from a single, traceable source sold direct to the consumer. They also cite health benefits, including beneficial bacteria, enzymes and nutrients, that are destroyed by the pasteurization process.

The Raw vs Pasteurized Debate places the health benefits against the disease threat. Although agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and numerous other worldwide regulatory agencies say that pathogens from raw milk make it unsafe to consume, certain organizations such as the Weston A. Price Foundation in its "Real Milk" campaign say that raw milk has health benefits that are destroyed in the pasteurization process and that it can be produced hygienically. .

The disease threat at present is a statistical issue and is defined in public health terms. Although Mycobacteria bovis (non-pulmonary tuberculosis) is found in raw milk, it is relatively rare in modern industrial societies. The public health issue is that tuberculosis and typhoid will always be present in raw milk, even if in statistically small amounts. These potentially disastrous pathogens in raw milk (non-pulmonary tuberculosis, typhoid, and salmonella) can be safely controlled by pasteurization, animal husbandry, and milk storage methods. The health of dairy animals can be managed by continual testing of dairy herds and careful storage of milk products. Some of the pathogens will never be eliminated from dairy herds since the pathogens are carried by common wildlife (goats, cats, dogs, pigs, buffalo, badgers, possums, deer, and bison). Thus, the public health side of the debate always returns to pasteurization, however, pasteurized milk still sickens people, and in far greater numbers than the more heavily regulated raw product

The disease threat at present is a statistical issue and is defined in public health terms. Although Mycobacteria bovis (non-pulmonary tuberculosis) is found in raw milk, it is relatively rare in modern industrial societies. The public health issue is that tuberculosis and typhoid will always be present in raw milk, even if in statistically small amounts. These potentially disastrous pathogens in raw milk (non-pulmonary tuberculosis, typhoid, and salmonella) can be safely controlled by pasteurization, animal husbandry, and milk storage methods. The health of dairy animals can be managed by continual testing of dairy herds and careful storage of milk products. Some of the pathogens will never be eliminated from dairy herds since the pathogens are carried by common wildlife (goats, cats, dogs, pigs, buffalo, badgers, possums, deer, and bison). Thus, the public health side of the debate always returns to pasteurization.

In 2008 scientists noticed that raw milk contains more bacteria than previously thought and identified Chryseobacterium oranimense as well as C. haifense and C. bovis, but the amount found in raw milk has not been proven harmful.

Lactose Intolerance and Allergies
Lactose intolerance is the inability to metabolize lactose, a sugar found in milk and other dairy products, because the required enzyme lactase is absent in the intestinal system or its availability is lowered. Lactose intolerance is not the same as a milk allergy, says Kavita Dada, Pharm.D., a senior health promotion officer in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Division of Drug Information. "For most people with lactase deficiency, it's a discomfort". Raw milk, unlike pasteurized milk, has its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme and Lactobacillus bacteria intact. However, America's Federal Food and Drugs Administration insists, that, "Drinking raw milk will still cause uncomfortable symptoms in people who are 'correctly diagnosed' as being lactose intolerant".

Long-term and early-life exposure to stables and raw milk induces a strong protective effect against development of asthma, hay fever, atopic sensitization rashes and allergic hypersensitivity. In a study of 14,893 children aged 5-13, consumption of raw milk was the strongest factor in reducing the risk of asthma and allergy, whether children lived on a farm or not.

Raw milk, unlike pasteurized milk, has its lactose-digesting lactase enzyme and Lactobacillus bacteria intact, and lactase can be purchased seperately, in supplement form, to help overcome lactose intolerance. However, America's Federal Food and Drugs Administration states, "Drinking raw milk will still cause uncomfortable symptoms in people who are correctly diagnosed as being lactose intolerant." .

Worldwide
Regulation of the commercial distribution of packaged raw milk varies across the world. Some countries have complete bans, but many have partial bans that do not restrict the purchase of raw milk bought directly from the farmer. Raw milk is sometimes distributed through a cow share program, wherein the consumer owns a share in the dairy animal or the herd, and can be considered to be consuming milk from their own animal. Raw Milk is sometimes marketed for animal or pet consumption, or for other uses such as soap making, in places where sales for human consumption are prohibited. Weston A. Price Foundation provide a directory of places to purchase raw milk.

Commercial distribution of packaged raw milk is prohibited in many countries. However, 28 US states allow sales of raw milk, and in other parts of the world, raw milk can often be bought directly from the farmer. Raw milk is sometimes distributed through a share program, wherein the consumer owns a share in the dairy animal or the herd, and can be considered to be consuming milk from their own animal.

USA
28 US states do not prohibit sales of raw milk. Most famously, in California, where it is estimated that over 100,000 people drink raw milk. Cow shares can be found, and raw milk purchased for animal consumption in many states where retail for human consumption is prohibited.

Note: The proposed changes add the above "USA" section while retaining the "In the United States" section unchanged.

In Europe
Distribution of raw milk is illegal in Scotland and The Irish Republic. It is legal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. "The Queen is still said to be a fan of raw milk from her Windsor Castle herd". About 200 producers sell raw, or "green top" milk direct to consumers, either at the farm, at a Farmers' market, or through a delivery service.

Milk is typically consumed unpasteurized in rural areas of Europe, and raw milk can typically be found in small amounts at stores in large cities. Raw milk cheese is legally produced in most European countries.

Distribution of raw milk is illegal in Scotland. It is legal in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but the only registered producers are in England. About 200 producers sell raw, or "green top" milk direct to consumers, either at the farm, at a Farmers' market, or through a delivery service. The bottle must display the warning "this product has not been heat-treated and may contain organisms harmful to health", and the dairy must conform to higher hygiene standards than dairies producing only pasteurised milk.

In Canada
The sale of raw milk directly to consumers is prohibited in Canada under the Food and Drug Regulations since 1991, but cow shares can be found.

The sale of raw milk directly to consumers is prohibited in Canada under the Food and Drug Regulations since 1991.

Section B.08.002.2 (1)
 * no person shall sell the normal lacteal secretion obtained from the mammary gland of the cow, genus Bos, or of any other animal, or sell a dairy product made with any such secretion, unless the secretion or dairy product has been pasteurized by being held at a temperature and for a period that ensure the reduction of the alkaline phosphatase activity so as to meet the tolerances specified in official method MFO-3, Determination of Phosphatase Activity in Dairy Products, dated November 30, 1981.

However, like the United States, Canada permits the sale of raw milk cheeses that are aged for at least 61 days.

In Japan
Raw milk is not prohibited, but the production of milk is very expensive, and currently, omoiyari is the country's only wholesaler of raw milk for consumer consumption.

Note: This "In Japan" section is new to the article.

Discussion-Raw Milk Safety
The additional information on the WP:FRINGE viewpoint of the Weston A. Price Foundation violates WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, and the already mentioned WP:ADVOCACY.

The addition of "however, pasteurized milk still sickens people, and in far greater numbers than the more heavily regulated raw product" is not verified by the citation given, appearing to be original research. Ironically, the cited source traces the problems documented in this article to cross-contamination from raw milk. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - Have you read the reference I provided? However, the comment could be toned down —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 06:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read the reference, hence my comment about the irony of the cross-contamination from raw milk. --Ronz (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is the difference between advocacy for and advocacy against? Presenting information from certain government agencies as fact and information from other sources as fringe is POV. It is from the point of view of the government agencies. It is not an uncontested non-point of view fact that groups like Weston Price are fringe groups. They are only fringe groups acording to the point of view of certain other parties. That is why it is probably best not to write this article as if it were a debate. One fact, that even states admit, is that more people want to obtain and drink raw milk. Another is that the royal family only drinks raw milk. Wales was going to regulate it but then they figured that people would just drive to England to get it. It is available on market shelves in California. Governments like to take away freedoms and give them to special intrests. The tea party was a protest of a tax break for a mega-corperation. When government gives tax breaks and regulatory prefrence to Big-AG companies like Monsanto then they are limiting our freedoms not necesarily protecting our health and safety. Ergo, their opinions are suspect. Using them are your primary source is POV.--Ryan Close (talk) 23:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that one side is not advocacy, hence the repeated references to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS in the discussions on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong. Opponents are simultaneously advocating for their own version of the truth with their own profit to gain. Imagine the wikipedia article on chickens focusing only on the controversy between those who raise chickens the way man has raised chickens for thousands of years and those who advocate a new way where they burn off the baby chickens noses, a way that has only existed for a few decades. Which is fringe and advocacy? What if it focused entirely on the controversy about whether people can raise chickens in cities or not, labeling as "fringe" only those who, like most people in history, would like to raise their own chickens rather then let big faceless corporations do it and labeling as "un-contested fact" the rather recent innovation of omni-competent government bodies prohibiting the traditional practice. Perhaps the difference is not between “fringe” and “un-contested fact” as it is between “tradition” and “naive modernism.” Bloodletting was once an "un-contested fact" you know. Doctors who questioned its efficacy and safety were labeled "deniers." Perhaps they WERE on the fringe in those days. As those would be those who say vaccines do nothing to promote good health and may actually make people sicker.
 * My point is that fringe and advocacy are inherently POV usages. Those who oppose the free choices of other well informed individuals to produce, purchase, and consume raw milk are advocating for a certain world view, way of living, way of doing agriculture, respect for freedom, and trust in certain kinds authority and not others. It is advocacy and dairy boards and health departments stand to gain many benefits both tangible and intangible.
 * Finally, labeling an opinion as "fringe" is an ad hominim argument. It is analogous to saying Mr. A's argument for capitalism is obviously wrong because he is a bourgeoisie, or Mr. B's argument against Western medicine is invalid because of his Oedipus complex. Whatever statement we find incompatible with our own presuppositions must automatically be incorrect. We must only point out the deficiency in the man and the thought itself disappears. No need to refute the thought when the man behind the thoughts is obviously wrong from the start. The modern pre-occupation with classifying certain thoughts are automatically invalid based on presuppositions about the thinker or speaker itself presupposes it's own automatic correctness. Is this thought correct? Another person could come along and say, Freud and Marx were automatically wrong because they were men, or some other similarly foolish statement. Mr. A and Mr. B are right or wrong quite apart from whether they are registered members of a certain political party. Being a Christian or homosexual does not automatically make your arguments invalid. An insinuation of this kind is quite offensive. It is also a very unhelpful way of revealing one’s own POV.--Ryan Close (talk) 01:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS apply here. Take it to WP:FTN if you disagree. --Ronz (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the FRINGE article: "3. Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point." The point of fringe is that it is un-notable outside a small group of adherents. Because major newspapers and book publishers have written extensively about the subject in the last few years and government bodies have taken notice and some have tried to make laws for or against it's production and consumption, it is hardly un-notable or unknown outside a very small group of adherants. Based on the quotation above "pasturization" itself is a pseudoscience since it has a "substantial following" but significant debate persists. As an example, this article and multiple high profile court cases. I can bring these verifyable secondary sources to bear on this article, but there would be no need for me to do this if, as I said before, I am wrong before I start. My question to you is, "Am I wrong before I start?"--Ryan Close (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A really good example of this kind of debate is that between advocates of breast-feeding and formula feeding. Both are advocates. Both are POV. Both sides accuse the other of pseudoscience. But is it right for the claims of breast-feeding to dominate the article on formula? Or vice-versa? Would it be a conflict of intrest for an employee of a formula company to edit the breast-feeding article? This shows the absurdity of such debates.--Ryan Close (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion-Lactose Intolerance and Allergies
This is the subject of the original dispute. Why milk allergies has been introduced into this information is beyond me, as it has nothing to do with the topic. It looks like the editors are trying to downplay lactose intolerance, while again promoting undocumented, potential benefits of raw milk, and questioning the FDA. So, more of the same problems. Cherry-picking specific findings from individual research results does not help. Changing quotes to support a viewpoint, in this case placing "correctly diagnosed" in quotes is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "It looks like the editors are trying to downplay lactose intolerance" Nonsense, I referred to the FDA's own downplaying of lactose introllerance, so was reporting the FDA's opinion, and not promoting undocumented, potential benefits of raw milk, I took a quote from an FDA document posted by the administrator who raised the complaint


 * " Lactose intolerance is not the same as a milk allergy, says Kavita Dada, Pharm.D., a senior health promotion officer in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Division of Drug Information. "For most people with lactase deficiency, it's a discomfort" .  "


 * "Cherry-picking specific findings from individual research results does not help." Cherry Picking is a cliche in this context, IT IS appropriate to refer to research from peer reviewed journal articles, and other people are welcome to discover contradictory research.


 * "Changing quotes to support a viewpoint, in this case placing "correctly diagnosed" in quotes is inappropriate." Fair point —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding "cherry-picking", see WP:MEDRS. Contrasting the FDA's statements with individual studies is exactly the type of cherry picking that is problematic. Adding that they "insist" only makes it worse. --Ronz (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

- I'm happy to get rid of the "insist" wording, but their assertion is unreferenced, so at the time, I considered "insist" appropriate, but there may be a softer verb. Would state, assert, content or urge be better? Or can you find evidence to back their claim? That they are an authority is not really to wikipedia standards in my opinion, particularly after US government was caught lying about things like torture and weapons of mass destruction in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should just follow WP:MEDRS. The FDA (and all health-related groups within the US government) is required to follow evidence-based medicine.  Not only do they have to document where they get their information, they must document the reliability of the information.  Sadly, no organizations involved in the torture and WMD scandals are held to such standards. --Ronz (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion-Worldwide
Overall, I think this is an improvement if it actually summarizes worldwide access to raw milk correctly. Unfortunately, it's all unsourced. The addition of the information about Weston A. Price Foundation's directory is simply an advertisement, violating WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The addition of the information about Weston A Price Foundation's Directory is not an advertisement, they are a not for profit organization offering free listings that Wikipedia does not have space for, WPF thus provide good information for readers about the subject matter, eg, the worldwide provision of raw milk, it is not that they are favoured, but that they provide the best known list of producers


 * With your comment about worldwide provision being unsourced, well, the source is the Weston Price Foundation Direction, that is why I posted that link, all of the info about sources in other countries can be found on the Weston Price Directory, that is why it is not simply an advertisement, it is a valuable source of information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC) '''
 * We can probably leave the info in unsourced, though it may justifiably be removed in the future without a proper source.
 * We don't link to lists of producers. Policies and guidelines supporting this have been provided.  I see no reason offered to make an exception. --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * --- The risk that readers may not believe this, and could delete, appears to be reason enough to add this single link. I think an exception ought to be made because Weston Price Foundation is an established reference at the beginning of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Ridley (talk • contribs) 05:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * - I would like confirmation as to whether this is acceptable, or whether the Weston Price link must be removed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are numerous ways to get others involved. I'll try WP:THIRD --Ronz (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion-USA
If kept, this paragraph should be combined with the "In the United States" section.(talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Agreed, there should be only one USA section, but the In The USA section ought to be at the top, rather than at the bottom, but the structure is disrupted by raw milk debate, which ought really be restrained to the discourse at the beginning of the page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 May 2009

"Most famously, in California, where it is estimated that over 100,000 people drink raw milk" More advertising, WP:OR, WP:ADVOCACY, etc. --Ronz (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (Link to California raw milk removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.93.207 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 28 May 2009

General discussion
I think in general these proposed edits are far too promotional and biased. I compromises don't come even close to following the related policies and guidelines mentioned, and no strong reason has been given for making exceptions to any of them. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion
I came to this page following a request at WP:3O. I have not edited this article before and have had no previous contact with the editors involved, so am sufficiently neutral to provide a suitable opinion. I'd also like to apologise for the time you've had to wait - as a voluntary effort editors are welcome to pick and choose which third opinions they wish to give, and I have been making my way through the backlog.

An initial read through the article suggests to me two things. Firstly, a bias towards raw milk in the USA, and secondly a headlong rush in to discussing the pros and cons of raw milk v pasteurised milk. There seems to be little or no context for raw milk, what it's made up of, how it's stored, differences in taste, texture, etc with pasteurised milk, cost, etc, etc. The same point was raised earlier in the talk page, and although the impression I get is that the article has slowly improved, it still has a long way to go to present a good article with no systemic bias, using WP:Reliable sources and ensuring WP:Verifiability. This brings me to the proposed changes. These changes seem keen to further this bias, increasing the US-centric view and increasing the amount of discussion of the pro/anti raw milk debate, for which there is already WP:UNDUE weight.

I also don't believe the Weston A Price Foundation is a suitable source for claims about the safety or otherwise of raw milk. It would be useful to note it's stance, but as per MEDRS, claims like this should be sourced to scientific reports, not apparent advocacy groups. I have asked for another opinion of the foundation here, it will be useful to see what they say (update: see reply). For its inclusion, I think the page would need to show that WPF was interested in promoting the consumption of raw milk. The FDA might have its biases too, but there are scientific studies to support its claims and I would expect the same for the other side of the debate.

There are also problems with the citations in the article. For example: "In 2008 scientists noticed that raw milk contains more bacteria than previously thought and identified Chryseobacterium oranimense as well as C. haifense and C. bovis, but the amount found in raw milk has not been proven harmful.[10]" This might suggest that the cited report commented on whether these new bacteria were harmful or not. In fact the report does not, the cite should be moved to the end of "..bovis." and the rest removed as unverifiable original research. I think it might be worth re-writing this article.

I think that covers most of it, but if there are any specific areas I have missed or anyone would like comment on please point them out and I shall comment. I will keep this page on my watchlist for the next week so will spot any changes. Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ronz asked me to comment on the inclusion of an external link in the prose of the worldwide section. WP:ELPOINTS states that external links within prose are very unusual and I don't think there is a reason to inclusde it here. Users can access the list from the WPF site or the specific raw milk site. Also, just to be clear, I think that attempts to ban sales of raw milk are ridiculous - the dangers are clearly spelled out and people should be able to make their own decision, cf tobacco and alcohol. Perhaps the conspiracy theories of agribusiness subversion are right, and the fact there's not much tax on raw milk mean governments think it's fair game. But that's irrelevant, the aim of wp is to chronicle using WP:RS and maintain a neutral point of view and that's what I'm trying to follow. Bigger digger (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully protectected
Please discuss issues here on the talk page, and/or engage in WP:Dispute resolution. Cirt (talk) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Legality of Raw milk distribution in England
I wish to challenge the information stating that the distribution of Raw milk to the general public is legal in England. Under the terms of food safety legislation from DEFRA, Raw unpasteurised milk is to the best of my recollection, only to be supplied to business for the making of Unpasteurised cheeses, such as Cheddars and Blue cheeses. I will locate the relevant document from DEFRA and post this as soon as possible. Barking Fish  Talk to me | My contributions 23:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Raw vs. Pasturized is highly biased
The Raw vs. Pasterizued section is very biased towards the pasturized side. This section first needs to define the meaning of the "pasterized", since what it actually means is not widely known and then needs to go on to show the percieved bvenefits of raw milk as well as the percieved benefits of pasturized milk. Any studies or research papers that are listed solely for their own sake need to be removed unless only important and widely-known papers are listed and unless studies concluding that raw is better as well as studies concluding that pasturized are better, are listed. ~Rayvn 02:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RayvnEQ (talk • contribs)
 * Not at all. See WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate? I don't see what you are trying to say.--209.248.150.234 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping the editor will take a look at WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV, which all contradict his claims of bias.
 * "Any studies or research papers that are listed solely for their own sake need to be removed unless only important and widely-known papers are listed and unless studies concluding that raw is better as well as studies concluding that pasturized are better, are listed." This is partially correct in that we need to be careful what research we use and how we use it.  Primary research should be used with care, mostly to provide additional, important details when other sources are lacking them. When discussing health-related matters, WP:MEDRS specifically details how to use secondary vs primary sources and how to summarize scientific consensus.  WP:NPOV is the policy on how we present material in a neutral manner - it is not done by simply selecting two sides and requiring them to be presented equally. WP:FRINGE details how we approach fringe issues, which regularly come up in this article.  --Ronz (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Factual Errors in Raw Milk article
The article includes FDA and CDC in a list as examples of "worldwide regulatory agencies". These are US Government regulatory agencies and their jurisdiction does not extend beyond the United States. Including them in a list of 'worldwide' agencies creates a false impression of what their jurisdiction is.

The summary should also point to the diversity of scientific and regulatory opinion in the world on that topic. The summary must summarise the real situation, not take the oportunity of brevity to sound-bite in favor of one side or the other in the debate.

If this is an encyclopedia article about a debate, it needs to describe the extent of the debate in both jurisdictional opinion and scientific evidence.

As we have all seen in the BP oil spill incident, citing regulatory opinions from any particular jurisdictional body may lead to opinions strongly distorted in favor of major industry players. The same is true of the debate over milk processing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snopeaks (talk • contribs) 12:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * References? --Ronz (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You want references to prove to you that the FDA and the CDC are not 'world wide regulatory agencies'? Isn't there some kind of policy about not having to site a reference for something that is common knowledge? Snopeaks (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a US govt. website showing that the FDA and the CDC are a part of the Department of Human Services of the executive branch of the US Government  http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive/HHS.shtml. The jurisdictions of the FDA and the CDC are restricted to the terretory of the United States. These are not wordwide regulatory agencies. Please correct your article. Snopeaks (talk) 03:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the article presents the FDA and CDC as such, so I ignored that part of your comment. Where exactly do you see the article presenting them in such a manner?
 * "The summary should also point to the diversity of scientific and regulatory opinion in the world on that topic." Provide reliable sources that show this diversity.  WP:NPOV applies to both scientific and regulatory opinion.  Scientific opinions must also meet WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE.
 * "The same is true of the debate over milk processing." Says who?  We write the article based upon the available sources, not original research. --Ronz (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the sentense from your article that implies the CDC and the FDA are worldwide regulatory agencies:

" Although agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other worldwide regulatory agencies say that ..."

By putting these organization in a list of worldwide regulatory agencies, you imply that they have a worldwide jurisdiction, or that they represent some kind of monolithic worldwide regulatory opinion.

This is an incorrect and biased satement in your article. It may represent your point of view, but it is not a neutral statement.

Snopeaks (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it could be read that way, but its a simple misreading, nothing more. Maybe it could be made clearer? --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then by all means make it clearer please. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it better now? Gandydancer (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

External Links biased to government sources
With all the -undoubtedly eminently qualified- editors of this page, why is it that only government external links are provided? That introduces a "government" and establishment bias in its face. There have to be countless papers, articles, journals, research, opinions, and more, from "verifiable" sources, which WILL provide a wider perspective for the inquisitive reader than just listing the FDA, CDC, and some States' Departments of Health, for goodness sake, people! Can you say Wiki-Cuba?!!! 146.23.68.40 (talk) 18:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do so many people think that the talk page is here to offer ideas for improving the article when they can as well do it themselves? I would love to have more time to work on the articles on my list and as it is there are things that I've wanted to do for months and have not found the time.  At least most people are nice about it - unlike the above anon poster...maybe I'm in a bad mood because I want to be out in my garden and it's cold and rainy...grrr (I'd like to kick his a**).  OK, rant over. Gandydancer (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Germany
Raw milk, and raw milk products, are pretty uncommon, and usually carry a premium of about 300 % (even cheeses that are traditionally made raw, like Camembert, come pasteurized by default). Vorzugsmilch (roughly, "selected" or "grade A+" milk) is - I think - a term that denotes special care (better hygienic standards, inspections, short shelf life). It is, to my knowledge, not as such a synonym for raw milk, although the provisions are probably needed to be sold legally. --92.78.5.152 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Twenty-eight U.S. states do not prohibit
The sentence "Twenty-eight U.S. states do not prohibit sales of raw milk," while correct also seems to be introducing a double negative that may not represent a neutral point of view. I say that because a lack of prohibition can simply mean the issue has not been addressed by the state government. It would be equally true to say that twenty-three states do have a restriction on raw milk, and those restrictions all resulted from some active decision by the state. I think a better sentence would have three groups: states that have a prohibition, states that specifically allow raw milk, and states that have voiced no opinions.Lakshwadeep (talk) 05:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The current wording seems biased, and the proposed solution seems much better. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

History
I just came from reading Pasteurization to here and noticed a bit of an issue. Quoted from the Pasteurization page "Pasteurization [i.e., scalding and straining] of cream to increase the keeping qualities of butter was practiced in England before 1773 and was introduced to Boston in the USA by 1773, although it was not widely practiced in the United States for the next 20 years. It was still being referred to as a "new" process in American newspapers as late as 1802." And over here on the Raw Milk page it states, "Humans consumed raw milk exclusively prior to the industrial revolution and the invention of the pasteurization process in 1864." Dunno if it's just me, but there seems to be a disagreement in this information.8-Bits ofDeadwolf (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to fit fine. Note the info on milk pasteurization, "It would be many years before milk was pasteurized. In the United States in the 1870s, it was common for milk to contain contaminants to mask spoilage before milk was regulated.[3]" "Pasteurization of milk was suggested by Franz von Soxhlet in 1886." --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify it for people like me that missed the point on first read, one date is referring to pasteurisation of cream, the other to the much later pasteurisation of milk. Greenman (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential sources
From : --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16512802 "Allergic diseases and atopic sensitization in children related to farming and anthroposophic lifestyle--the PARSIFAL study"
 * Doesn't mention raw milk that I can find. --Ronz (talk) 02:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21875744 "The protective effect of farm milk consumption on childhood asthma and atopy: the GABRIELA study."
 * Definitely should be included if it isn't already. --Ronz (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(12)00519-2/fulltext "Amish children living in northern Indiana have a very low prevalence of allergic sensitization"
 * I'm not sure what to make of this. It's just a letter to the editor, right? --Ronz (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits - NPOV, COI, and more
claims to be Gary Cox, a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it. There will be a WP:COIN discussion on him shortly, which I'll link here.

The edits from this ip violate all the regular policies/guidelines that come up regularly here: WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. WP:BATTLE and WP:COI apply to the specific editor as well.

I've made the same comments at Talk:United States raw milk debate. He's made almost identical edits to both articles. --Ronz (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

COIN discussion started. --Ronz (talk) 01:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed most of it. While reviewing it, I think we're understating the medical/scientific consensus about the the lack of any difference in nutritional value and in the public health problems with raw milk. --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ultra-Pasteurization?
I recently attempted to purchase some heavy cream, or whipping cream to make some whipped cream. While looking at the ingredient list on the package (which I expected to see ONE ingredient:cream), I noticed that seaweed (carrageenan), was added. Upon further research, I found that it is due to adding thickening which is destroyed by the ultra-pasteurization process. Now I'm looking for a source of heavy cream, ice-cream, and other products which do not have seaweed or any other ingredients, but I don't think that I want to take a chance with raw milk. Is their any info. about pasteurized, but not "ultra"-pasteurized milk products? Maybe condensed milk? I left a note in the dairy aisle for store and customers to read. I think people need to know more about this.24.0.133.234 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC) edited to strike-out incorrect statement24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Carrageenan
Raw milk cheeses are made with raw milk and often use mold and aging to develop flavor and texture. An algae/seaweed derivative,(Carrageenan) is commonly added to non raw milk products such as cream, ice-cream and other milk products to restore the thickening ability of ultra -pasteurized and homogenized milk, that raw milk products retain.Stonyfield Farm & Organic Valley Respond to Consumer Concerns About Carrageenan|url=http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_25591.cfm <---deleted again edited to strike-out incorrect info.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I did not add all of this material which was deleted. The blue cheese seems to be important and excuse me if I stepped into some kind of tricky problem. The only reason that I am interested is because I would rather not have seaweed in my dairy products--just because I do not want to eat it. I'm not trying to add health or controversial claims but apparently only raw milk produces the thickness needed for certain cheese, cream, ice-cream, whipped-cream...some yogurt....I think that this fact, that a "thickener" such as seaweed is added to ultra- pasteurized milk products (non-raw milk), DOES belong in the raw milk article.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)edited to so incorrect info.24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Before I repost again or take this to a WP:DRN, since I have been reverted 2x now-I would like to have someone tell me here besides the citation-(which was the 1st excuse for deleting), which had a lot of information but may not be considered a neutral source, what is objectionable about including this? Or what can be done to improve the information, because this is directly related to raw, non-ultra-pasteurized edited correction24.0.133.234 (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC) milk.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is about raw milk. The WP:LEDE of the article should summarize the rest of the article, highlighting key information. The edits you're proposing have little or nothing to do with the topic and certainly don't belong in the lede.
 * The proposed source doesn't verify the information and is not reliable.
 * As for your concern: As I understand it, carrageenan is being used to stabilize homogenized dairy products, and produce a thicker mouth feel. --Ronz (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand it too--from what I have been reading, it is not only the homogenization that renders milk products that are "too thin" unlike raw milk. (otherwise they could just remove the cream before homogenizing?edit for clarity)I don't want to get into a debate about health claims, I am only trying to learn about why this crap is added to foods and so far my research had led me to the topic of raw milk that is why this information pertains. I think that I can just as easily grab a reference from the somewhat biased against seaweed site, like the FDA perhaps? since there are quite a few refs there.24.0.133.234 (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheeses and raw milk are mentioned extensively (eleven times),in the article. Just for the record since that was one of the edit summary (that cheese/raw milk was NOT mentioned in the article), reasons for deleting mention of cheese from the lede of the article.24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC) edited24.0.133.234 (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Farm effect
Concerning the proposed changes (bolding the changed words): "However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk, so other aspects of the overall urban vs. farming environment lifestyle playing a role in these effects should be considered; for this reason, the overall phenomenon is termed the 'farm effect.'"

Previous version: "However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk, so it is likely that other aspects of the overall urban vs. farming environment lifestyle play a role in these effects; for this reason, the overall phenomenon is termed the 'farm effect.'"

The change of emphasis and tone seems less neutral, and "should be considered" makes it appear we're instructing which is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Saying that something "is likely" is less neutral than saying that something needs to be considered. But I am going to go back and take out "should".24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Says who? Is this just your personal opinion? --Ronz (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "is likely", and "suggests" are affirmation words,(as is "should"-which I have deleted) and possibly an incorrect confirmation of something that has not been verified. I have fixed it now to "has been suggested"-, in an attempt to retain the information about "farm effect" being a thing. Also the sentences following that statement go into greater detail about the (hypothetical), farm effect. There is enough detail there that a reader can draw their own conclusions about the studies and the argument about the methodology.24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So personal opinion then. That would be an NPOV violation. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Upon reading the abstract of the cited article immediately preceding this statement that is currently in the FARM EFFECT section:However, all of these studies have been performed in children living on farms and living a farming lifestyle, rather than comparing urban children living typical urban lifestyles and with typical urban exposures on the basis of consumption or nonconsumption of raw milk. I discovered that the statement is FALSE.  from England--the article that is citation number 14; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16751000


 * Which aspects of the farming lifestyle explain the inverse association with childhood allergy? says in the abstract that ;"The effect was seen in all children, independent of farming status. Unpasteurized milk consumption was associated with a 59% reduction in total IgE levels (P < .001) and higher production of whole blood stimulated IFN-gamma (P = .02).
 * CONCLUSION:
 * Unpasteurized milk consumption was the exposure mediating the protective effect on skin prick test positivity. The effect was independent of :::::farming status and present with consumption of infrequent amounts of unpasteurized milk.
 * CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS:
 * Unpasteurized milk might be a modifiable influence on allergic sensitization in children." -they also strongly advise that they do not recommend giving raw milk to children,
 * If any of the research, provided that the research is reliable, would lead a reader to take that information out of context,(as it is in the Raw milk article Farm effect section) or even one entire study out of the context of risks and conclude that giving raw cow's milk to children provided any health benefits without significant risks involved, I would have a problem with the serious risks not being mentioned in the same section. IF the "farm effect" proves to be false, if raw milk confers some type of protection regarding asthma and/or allergies...that does not mean that serving raw cow's milk to children is without the risk of exposing the child to pathogens which could cause something worse than allergies. Also in England and Europe where the research was conducted, raw cow's milk is sold with a warning label (that says to BOIL the raw milk), which validates including risk/dangers with information about the results of English raw milk research. That is not OR, (provided a verifiable reference), if it is a fact. This asthma allergy etc. research applies directly to raw milk so I don't know if it should be merged over to raw milk debate or not. Maybe Raw milk should be defined as briefly as possible and/or disambiguated with links to the various subsections? With raw milk being what it is, (which is actually a problem- defining it;-straight from the animal, or refrigerated, or un-altered in any way...? As far as I can tell there really is no final or global legal definition that distinguishes raw milk from any other milk ) Or listing other harm-reduction methods besides pasteurization that are used to make consuming raw milk safer? Are we talking warm milk straight from a mammal that is not a person's mother, or milk from a farm that has been BOILED and then cooled? The people who answered the original survey for the study could have very well boiled that milk which is pretty close to what pasteurization does isn't it?24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at the other references? --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Move legal status section or ?
The legal status is given undue weight to the article. I'm thinking that one way to preserve all of it would be to create a new page called something like "Legal status of raw milk". Another idea would be to use a table or spreadsheet, but I'm concerned about losing too much content there.24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC) moved24.0.133.234 (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how that could be undue weight. --Ronz (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The various legal statuses are given more space on the page than the topic of Raw milk-so much that it could be another article or merged elsewhere but linked to the article. Also I think the lede does not say enough about raw milk in contrast to statements about legal status and the debate about health etc. Maybe the legal info. could be collapsed? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. However there's no way of knowing when it is so poorly sourced. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It is not given too much weight and would be best left as is. Gandydancer (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * well then maybe change the name of the article to the regulation of raw milk? Because that is what it looks like. But I do believe that valid legal information should be attached to the article-I just don't like the way that it looks--the way that it is currently formatted which takes-up about 3/4 of the article space.(and that is not including all of the references generated by the legal data). If you include the space used by the references pertaining to "legal status", it looks to me to be about 90+ % of the page-(including white space) 24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the title, at least while the article is so poorly sourced
 * I think it would be best to expand the article and improve/increase the references, then look over these concerns again.
 * Most of the focus with this article has been on keeping the promotional and fringe theory problems under control. The rest of the article gets little attention and it shows. --Ronz (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Farm effect again
Please see my edits to :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_raw_milk_debate# I_redid_a_section United States raw milk debate and the talk page there. The "farm effect" information as it is currently in the Raw milk article is incorrect, out-dated, out-of-context, and false hypotheses which were disproved in further scientific studies which used blood tests and lab results rather than only surveys. I took out and corrected false information in the United States raw milk debate article, and as that section was almost word-for-word what is currently posted in the farm effect section of this Raw milk article, I think that what I changed there could serve here as well but I'm hoping for a review or other editorial improvements before I go ahead and fix it. Again, as it stands currently, the information on the farm effect and the research in the Raw milk article is wrong and needs to be boldly edited.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again, "Have you looked at the other references?"
 * Are you aware of WP:MEDRS that specifically states that we prefer more recent research over older, and reviews and guidelines over individual studies? --Ronz (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Well I would agree with that but I was trying to correct the incorrect information as it related to the farm effect. You are right about using out dated sources and that is exactly what is wrong with the section. What is there is out-dated, incorrect for what it even represents, false, especially when claiming that only farm children were studied and more, the reversal that you did in the US raw milk debate put back the key false statements that were later proven incorrect. As it stands right now the information is so incorrect and outdated that it should probably just be deleted entirely except that another editor would probably try to re-post the incorrect information again, that is why I was extracting the newer and more complete information from the multitude of research that was done as it pertains to the farm effect topic. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume for the moment that you haven't read the other references and you aren't aware that one of them is a more recent research review of the type preferred by MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

What are cow shares?
Yes, we need a referenced definition in the article. Would this do? http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/11/skirting-the-law-with-cow-share-agreements/#.U12e86LB2XM --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Perfect! I encorporated and reworded. The actual term doesn't seem to be needed, so I replaced it. Student7 (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for adding it in! --Ronz (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Raw vs Pasteurized European food quality analysis
I added a small summary of a review article about techniques to assess food quality. It involves picture forming techniques (mostly through crystallization) that might "show" qualitative differences in pictures made from raw and pasteurized milk, as well as other substances. I have emailed the researchers to see if we could include the pictures- they are quite interesting, even if the technique is not well established. Feel free to edit. Thanks! Chickpecking (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed it because it sounds like a rather extreme WP:FRINGE claim. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It is permissible to use a review article, even WP:FRINGE allows that. I am copying it below in case others feel otherwise inclined.

New techniques at determining food quality are being investigated. One possible method involves "fingerprinting" a substance by either direct evaporation and crystal formation or addition of copper chloride salt and controlled evaporation to form a crystal pattern. The concept behind this pattern formation is explained by entropy export, dissipative structure, and self-organization. The quality and complexity of these patterns has been linked to the quality of the substance analyzed. . This picture forming technique has been done comparing raw milk and pasteurized, homogenized milk. Visually the crystallization pattern of pasteurized milk was found to be less complex than raw milk. Texture analysis differentiated the two milks with significance. .Chickpecking (talk) 18:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Even disregarding the fringe aspect, it's the same researcher citing themselves, so it's not the kind of secondary source we're looking for. If whatever this person is touting (it really isn't clear and appears rather handwavy as written), it will be reported in independent secondary sources. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will look for that. I am not a native German speaker so finding articles is difficult. There appears to be another review by a different author. Also I will try to find the pictures (worth a thousand words). Thanks.Chickpecking (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
(Moved from my talk page --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC))

I am disappointed by your reversions of my edits on raw milk. There was a flag "lead too short"; I extended the lead and removed the flag, but you reverted and shortened the lead! I introduced a pros & cons to give a bit more of a platform to the pros; again reverted.

There are two opposing stances on raw milk (both of which have some merit): the pros say raw milk is the real deal and hugely more nutritional than processed milk. The cons say unpasteurised milk is unsafe (even though huge numbers drink nothing else throughout their lives, without any ill effect). Although you accuse me of "fringe" and "pov" I feel your edits have simply reinforced the "industry view". It may be that the "raw milkers" seem to be proposing a conspiracy theory, but the positions of the dairy industry and the medical profession are flawed and need examination.

In short, your edits have restored bias to the page, and I propose to undo them. Arrivisto (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The edits are quite a bit broader than what you describe:
 * "to give a bit more of a platform to the pros" I'm glad we agree on what you did. It was inappropriate given that you changed the pov without explanation much less support from new sources.
 * "There are two opposing stances on raw milk" Says who?
 * " I feel your edits have simply reinforced the "industry view"." What matters is whether or not we're following the relevant policies and what the best-quality sources have to say. WP:FRINGE, WP:MEDRS, and WP:NPOV are the main policies that I think we should focus upon. I'm also concerned that WP:ARB/PS may apply here.
 * "but the positions of the dairy industry and the medical profession are flawed and need examination." Says who? I suspect a review of the sources will show that the positions have indeed been examined closely and without bias as to the outcome. --Ronz (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with Ronz. Keri (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)