The coolest place on the internet, according to this tagline.

More on raw milk

lovemrsc says: ”Thanks” for this worthless inclusion of raw milk hate. The multipliers they used were outrageous.

» SFB says: The quote marks were certainly kind. Moving on, I’d assume that the state of Minnesota isn’t just making stuff up and that they had a good reason for using the multiplying they did, but, rather than assume, let’s look at their methodology. From the actual report:

Although outbreaks associated with raw milk occur frequently and receive much media attention, the number of reported cases determined to be outbreak-related likely represents a small proportion of the actual number of illnesses associated with this product. Two lines of evidence support this assumption. First, among reported illnesses caused by enteric pathogens that are laboratory-confirmed, non–outbreak-related (i.e., sporadic) cases far outnumber those associated with recognized outbreaks (17). Second, for each reported laboratory-confirmed illness caused by a bacterial or protozoal enteric pathogen, an estimated 26–100 additional illnesses likely occur, depending on the pathogen (18). Therefore, any estimates of the number of illnesses associated with raw milk consumption should include an evaluation of sporadic cases, including multipliers to account for underdiagnosis and underreporting. However, little information is available on the number of sporadic cases of illness associated with raw milk consumption.

Not everyone goes to a hospital when they get food poisoning, so that’s why they have to multiply stuff. And while I don’t necessarily have an opinion, I would have to assume that one of the study’s authors, Minnesota Department of Health epidemiologist Trisha Robinson, isn’t just speaking from personal opinion when she hands quotes to USA Today like this one: ”it’s important for people to know and understand these risks before they use raw milk or give it to children. Pasteurization is around for a reason.”

Drink as much raw milk as you want—I hear it has a lot of good things in it, too! Just keep in mind that the state of Minnesota probably isn’t scaremongering when they do research like this. — Ernie @ SFB

EDIT: Here’s the NIH study they used to figure out the formula.

December 11, 2013 // 21:49 // 9 months ago
blog comments powered by Disqus

21 notes from really cool Tumblrs like ours. Click to read.

  1. sensiblestupidity reblogged this from shortformblog
  2. campobench reblogged this from shortformblog
  3. stphn said: By all means, let’s follow lovemrsc anecdotal evidence that raw milk is safe instead…
  4. dingo reblogged this from shortformblog
  5. adroitus reblogged this from shortformblog
  6. teensith reblogged this from shortformblog
  7. starsandboulevards said: Is all this about the article coming out in the CDC’s EID journal this January? They have an article covering raw-milk related illness, finding that approx. 17% of its consumers over the course of the study ‘may have’ become ill.
  8. shortformblog posted this