Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Raw milk's the rave? Demand grows despite risks - USATODAY.com

I don't know much about the purported health benefits (my guess is that some of them are real, certainly not all of them). But I do know that the raw milk I drink and that is produced at Hendricks' Farms -where I work- tastes A LOT better than any pasteurized milk I've ever had. So much better, in fact, that after a couple of decades of not drinking milk regularly I currently drink about one quart per week. I'm a sucker for stuff that tastes great.

My main man Miguel Cervantes was certainly not wrong when in Don Quixote he wrote (in Spanish, of course) "the best sauce in the world is hunger" but I think magnificent flavor makes a pretty fine sauce too.

The risks of drinking raw milk are real, so make sure you know who is producing the raw milk you buy. Poke around the dairy and make sure it's clean. Check to make sure the cows' udders are being sanitized before milking and that the milking room floor is kept hosed down. Due diligence is required.

Raw milk's the rave? Demand grows despite risks

5 comments:

redman said...

We haven't gone raw yet but recently switched to a local organic milk for the simple reason that the flavor of it is so unbelievably amazing. It has this big round flavor and depth that makes it seem like a different food from conventional stuff. I haven't found that with some other organic milks- their flavor was perhaps mildly better than conventional- but with the one we have up here (fresh breeze organic) there is a marked difference.

Sean said...

The purported benefits of raw milk, like raw diets in general, don't survive even rudimentary scientific scrutiny. I get so tired of reading of the supposed benefits of enzymes present in raw products when our bodies simply don't use them in the processing of food. Most vegetables and milk in this instance, retain more nutrients in their unadulterated states but the difference is marginal at best and hardly sufficient to justify forgoing the many benefits of cooking/processing food, not the least of which is taste.

It also annoys me that some of the staunchest proponents of raw milk are people like Nina Planck and the Weston Price foundation, both of whom spare no opportunity to vilify vegetarians/vegans as potentially unhealthy nutjobs. The same pseudoscience that humans NEED meat to survive is at the basis of their arguments for raw milk.

Tags said...

So, which is it...

non-vegan = pseudoscience

or

anti-vegan = pseudoscience

It's not pseudoscience but a fact to suggest that it's a lot simpler, easier and more flavorfully varied to use meat & dairy to get your requirement of amino acids than the circuitous and monotonous use of vegan ingredients.

That said, anybody who vilifies someone solely for being vegan is a potentially unhealthy meatjob.

Sean said...

It's pseudoscience to derive the most optimum diet based on a survey of dental health in indigenous population. It's pseudoscience to suggest that one's blood type makes one more or less amenable to certain diets.

I didn't claim that "it's a lot simpler, easier and more flavorfully varied to use meat & dairy to get your requirement of amino acids" was false but rather the assertion that human beings NEED meat to survive or even thrive.

Also "the circuitous and monotonous use of vegan ingredients" makes little sense to me. Do you eat vegetables? Hundreds of millions of Indians, particularly in southern regions, eat vegan or near vegan on a daily basis and I would be hard pressed to characterize their collective food culture as monotonous or boring. Likewise, try picking up the Millenium cookbook or booking a reservation at Ubuntu or Candle Cafe if you still think plant based cuisine can't be exciting simply for lack of a butchered animal.

Tags said...

I hope you're right, Sean. I'd rather eat a little meat and dairy with a varied vegan diet than the other way around.

The Millenium cookbook is now on my list.