På Västfronten intet nytt som man sa förr i världen.......
Vem är det som bestämmer om ett födoämne är nyttigt/ohälsosamt, bra/dåligt.... är det vetenskapliga beslut som ligger bakom eller handlar det bara om politik? Är högpastöriserad mjölk bättre än lågpastöriserad, eller handlar det bara om att förlänga varans liv i hyllan före människornas liv?
Hur är det egentligen med mat och s.k. matburna sjukdomar?
Foodborne Illnesses in America
Complex Factory Foods pose the Highest Risk:
RANKING FOODBORNE RISKS
Statistics tend to put people to sleep, but three important reports were published this year that deserve attention: one by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC),  one by the University of Florida (UF) to which Grooters contributed,  and one by retired pathologist and raw milk drinker, Dr. Ted Beals. 
Let’s agree that numbers can be massaged to prove just about anything. However, when opponents of raw milk make outrageous claims about its dangers, and when millions of state and federal dollars are spent eliminating it as a food choice thru armed raids – – we ought to shout that from the rooftop.
How Bad It Is(n’t)
As the Director of Research and Education, Grooters is responsible for the STOP Foodborne Illness page, “Fact vs. Myth.” As if unable to distinguish the two, SFI repeats unsubstantiated, fear mongering propaganda. We’ll start with an easy one:
“There are no documented health benefits associated with ingestion of unpasteurized milk or milk products.”
Quite the opposite is true. In 2006, researchers reported the “competitive exclusion” effect of good bacteria found in raw milk, observing that:
“ subsp. C-1-92 and 152 … are bactericidal to or inhibit the growth of both in vitro and in biofilms.”
is responsible for 1,591 illnesses a year, according to the 2011 CDC report (at Table 2).  That’s for all foods, not just milk. Dr Beals described it this way:
“Listeria monocytogenes is the most serious and deadly of the contemporary foodborne pathogens. Yet it is also ubiquitous in our environment.” 
Based on Dept of Health and Human Services (DHS) data covering 1999 thru 2010, Dr Beals determined, “there have been no cases attributed to drinking raw milk in the last twelve years.” 
On the other hand, , a probiotic bacterium found in raw milk of pastured cows, was legislated as Wisconsin’s state microbe last year. Microbiology professor Kenneth Todar explains that Lactococci are associated with grasses, which pastured cows ingest, and which then show up in their milk. 
Not only are Lactococcus deadly to pathogenic bacteria, but they are vital to making certain cheeses and other fermented products. And, they have to be added back in when starting with pasteurized milk.
Grooters also advises that:
“Pregnant women, young children, the elderly and those with weakened immune systems should avoid unpasteurized products.”
It’s a wonder the human species survived 200,000 years before the food police came along! We know for certain that humans have been drinking unpasteurized animal milk for at least ten thousand years.  Human population certainly hasn’t decreased since then.
The enzymes and “friendly” bacteria destroyed by pasteurization boost our immunity. We know this based on the scientifically accepted “competitive exclusion” principle – the more friendly bacteria you have, the fewer pathogenic ones that survive. Friendly bacteria compose part of our immune system, and competitive exclusion is what the entire probiotics food industry is based on.
Pasteurized Milk Contaminations
Grooters also stated at the Myths and Facts page:
“Raw or unpasteurized milk can transmit many serious infectious diseases to children.”
Then why doesn’t it? Statistics from the UF report to which she contributed show dairy to be the safest of all foods, accounting for 1/100th of a percent of all foodborne illnesses annually. (More on this below.)
In fact, raw milk is much safer than pasteurized. According to Dr Beals, in 2010, DHS reported 90,771 confirmed foodborne illnesses for the period 1999 thru 2010. Based on DHS data, Beals reports you are 35,000 times more likely to get sick from any food other than raw milk. 
Beals calculated that 42 people become ill from contaminated raw milk each year, a figure which includes “both ‘confirmed’ and ‘presumed’ cases.”
Yet, in a single case of contaminated pasteurized milk, over 16,000 people became ill in Illinois and several other Midwest states. Later, up to 5 of them died. That 1985 calamity was called the “worst outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning in U.S. history.”  It even beats last year’s half-billion egg recall with just over1,900 confirmed cases of salmonella poisoning.
In a 1983 Massachusetts milk contamination case, 49 people became ill. Later, 14 of them died. An inspection found the pasteurization process up to snuff, leading scientists to question relying on pasteurization to kill listeria. 
70% of all foodborne illnesses come from factory foods; Dairy is safest of all food
Here is where a political agenda drives scientific reporting. The 2011 UF report  sought to determine which pathogens and which foods pose the highest risk. “Complex foods” (defined as non-meat factory foods with a host of additives) accounts for a whopping 70% of the 3,861,128 annual foodborne illnesses UF considered. (p.9)
Dairy, on the other hand, accounts for 434 illnesses. That’s about 1/100th of a percent, “almost all” of it “due to soft-ripened cheeses” – mostly queso fresco, a soft cheese made from raw milk favored in the Hispanic community. (p.43)
UF developed a ranking system based on various factors including “quality of life,” a term used by DHS. This is where numbers can be massaged to show an increased risk that wouldn’t be obvious from raw numbers. This probably explains how UF ranked dairy risk #5 in a field of 10, despite that factory foods sickened 2,689,877 people and dairy sickened only 434.