My Culinate

Register | Login

Milking time

What kind of milk do you drink?

By Caroline Cummins
February 20, 2007

Back before the now-ubiquitous “Got Milk?” advertising campaign, the milk industry used a longer slogan: “Milk. It does a body good.”

Does it? Like so many other formerly innocuous foodstuffs, milk is now the subject of debates that reach pasteurization levels. Should humans drink milk from other animals at all? If so, is it better to drink milk from goats rather than cows? Is raw milk really better for me, or will it make me sick? Is industrially produced milk safer, or more dangerous?

Finally, there’s a seemingly mundane question: Should I drink whole, lowfat, or nonfat milk?

Whole milk has the most saturated fat. That’s bad, right? Nonfat milk might look blue and taste watery, but it must be the best for me because it’s fat-free. Right?

Author and activist Nina Planck begs to differ. In the New York Times, she’s argued that drinking nonfat or even lowfat milk is a waste of your money and health.

The fat in whole milk, writes Planck, naturally contains the essential vitamins A and D. Nonfat and lowfat milk, on the other hand, must have synthetic versions of these vitamins added to them, which is why your milk carton says “Vitamins A and D added.”

So right out of the barn, you have to choose between ordinary and fake vitamins. And then there’s the question of whether you’re really getting those vitamins at all. “Vitamins A and D are fat-soluble,” writes Planck, “(which) means they cannot be absorbed into the body unless they’re taken in with fat. Thus, even fortified skim and lowfat milk are not nearly as beneficial as the real thing.”

The real thing, according to Planck? It’s not just whole milk, but whole milk that’s been produced the way milk used to be produced before industrial milking got involved: from cows that live outdoors, eating grass instead of grain, and which, because of all their clean living, produce pristine milk you can drink straight from, well, the udder.

Yes, that means raw milk. But if you can’t get raw milk, Planck says, non-homogenized whole milk is the next best thing. Homogenized milk distributes the fat evenly throughout milk, so you don’t have clumps of cream at the top of your milk bottle. But according to Planck in her 2006 book Real Food, homogenization is “entirely unnecessary ... producing rancid flavors and causing milk to sour more quickly.”

Find cream clots annoying? Scoop them off and dollop them on your dessert, or mix them into your coffee. And yes, it tastes fatty, because it is. You may recognize the taste from that more-familiar and somewhat less controversial kitchen staple: butter.

Please take our poll about raw milk usage

Subscribe
Advertisement
Comments
There are 4 comments on this item
Add a comment
1. by grateful_J on Feb 22, 2007 at 10:05 AM PST

Good article with interesting information, and it brings to mind the difference between being “healthy” and “not sick,” the difference between the minimum vitamin intake to prevent disease, and the optimum vitamin intake to maintain health. Clearly “health” is a continuum, not simply two categories of “sick” and “well.”

It is almost embarrassing to me to be talking about fine-tuning milk choices in a world where there are way too many people hungry, but since we ARE in a position of abundance, we should choose wisely.

AND it is no small matter how we treat the animals that provide this fundamental source of so many products that we delight in.

So many good issues, so little time.

2. by anonymous on Feb 22, 2007 at 10:27 AM PST

We just started buying raw whole milk from a farm in Oregon. The raw milk has a lot of natural bacteria that we need to digest food properly. In pasteurized milk all bacteria is killed. This is why pasteurized milk spoils and raw milk sour if left on the counter.

3. by grateful_J on Feb 22, 2007 at 5:45 PM PST

Two questions: (1) Does anyone know where I can get raw whole milk in downtown Portland, OR; (2) Will someone please comment - from his/her own experience - on any difference in TASTE between raw and pasturized mile?

4. by jberry on Feb 23, 2007 at 8:31 AM PST

I’m still grappling with the question of just how dangerous raw milk is, or isn’t, and, like grateful_J, thinking about whether such risk, if any, is worth the difference in taste and/or nutritional value.

I came across a seemingly very quite balanced article from the Northeast Organic Farming Association that looks into a lot of these issues.

On the risk side, I found an epidemiological study of reported outbreaks of disease in the US from raw milk between 1973 and 1992. The found 46 such outbreaks in that timeframe, averaging about 19 people each, though they think the incidents are quite underreported.

I’m still scratching my head about this. The study mentioned above, together with a very much confirmed recent outbreak of raw-milk related e coli poisoning in Washington state makes me very sceptical of the reporting done in the Washington Post article referenced here (the authors seemingly did no research into whether there actually were any reported cases of poisonings, instead somewhat slyly falling back on the statements of several folks who weren’t able to point to any specific cases.

Add a comment

Think before you type

Culinate welcomes comments that are on-topic, clean, and courteous. For the benefit of the community we reserve the right to delete comments that contain advertising, personal attacks, profanity, or which are thinly disguised attempts to promote another website.

Please enter your comment

Format: Bare URLs are automatically linked; use this style: [http://www.example.com "link text"] for prettier links. You may specify *bold* or _italic_ text. No HTML please.

Please identify yourself

Not a member? Sign up!

Please prove that you’re not a computer


Sift

Here’s where we sort and report the latest in food news.

Want more? Comb the archives.

Slow Food

Sandwiches for dessert

Cookies and ice cream, stacked

A little sweat, a big sweet.

Subscribe