Considering we live in America’s Dairyland, I’m surprised it has taken this long for lawmakers to move on getting legislation approved to allow farmers the right to sell raw milk. However, with the leaps and bounds this country has seen in the way of technological advancement, I’m also shocked that there hasn’t been anything done to improve the quality of milk without adding chemicals via pasteurization, which only reduces the nutritional value.
Before milk is pasteurized, it is chock full of nutrients and vitamins that are good for the body. But once it is pasteurized, it isn’t all that good for you anymore. At 145 degrees, the pasteurization process destroys vitamin A and 38 percent of vitamin B complex. In addition, between 20 and 50 percent of the vitamin C in milk is also destroyed. Aside from vitamins, other healthy aspects of milk are also compromised during pasteurization. The soluble calcium that is important for growth and development is diminished and proteins in the milk are altered, which can increase incidence of heart disease.
But that isn’t all. The lacking nutritional value also results in poor infant development and increased likelihood of tooth decay (sure seems hypocritical that a beverage that’s supposed to be calcium-rich really isn’t). And what really gets my goat is that people who are lactose intolerant wouldn’t be if milk wasn’t pasteurized. When it goes through pasteurization, fat digesting enzymes needed to help digest milk are also taken out with all of the bacteria. Ironically, people aren’t actually intolerant of dairy products after all; they’re just not tolerant of the chemicals removing all of the good stuff. Who knew?
And while milk may be contaminated with bacteria and deemed “dirty” before it’s pasteurized, that’s not necessarily how it has to be. Because the milk has to go through the pasteurization process, it doesn’t have to be healthy to begin with. Anything that is unwanted, such as bacteria, is removed anyway. Thus, farmers can produce and sell “dirty” milk cheaply and not have to worry about keeping a clean dairy. Now, I’m not saying that this is traditional practice for dairy farmers, but pasteurization allows them to slack off a bit on maintaining clean, sterile milk-producing environments. However, if more farmers were held accountable for the production of their milk and weren’t required to have it pasteurized, it would not only improve dairy farmers’ incomes, but also make milk healthier for consumers.
While bacteria is taken out of milk before it’s bottled (jugged and put into cartons, I suppose, would be more accurate these days) and ends up in coolers at the local grocery store, people are missing some essential elements that fend off tooth decay and tuberculosis. Sure, pasteurization makes milk safer to drink in some regards, but does it really make milk it as healthy as it could be in the long run? After researching the pros and cons of pasteurization, I don’t think it can be successfully argued one way or the other ... which is why I am in agreement with Rep. Chris Danou and Sen. Pat Kreitlow on this issue. Farmers should have the ability to sell raw milk off their farms and people should be able to make their own decisions when it comes to what they put into their bodies.
Regardless of what happens with the bill lawmakers are trying to pass, something needs to be done to improve the way milk is produced and processed. If farmers aren’t allowed to sell raw milk, the industry needs to come up with a way to process milk without taking out all of the vitamins and other essential nutrients along with the bacteria. If it’s possible to have a little iPod store a gazillion gigabytes of information, why can’t bacteria be removed from milk some other way?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment