yengyeng wrote:
Raw milk is banned in Singapore. But since I can find unpasteurized cheese, I am wondering if I can get organic unpasteurized butter or even cream as well.
lol. It is not really a fad. Traditionally, milk, butter was drank without pasteurization. This explains it quite well:
http://www.naturalnews.com/039613_got_m ... lcium.html
Thanks for the link. That said, it does confirm that it is a fad, i.e. an attempt to profit from ignorance and paranoia. The Krebs cycle (how food is metabolised) was one of my
fortes at school, and there is so much preposterous hocum in that article that I wouldn't know where to start taking it apart*.
I'm not sure when milk was 'traditionally' drunk without pasteurisation, maybe before Pasteur concluded it was a good idea (i.e. 100+ years ago)?
Do you also use un-fluoridated toothpaste, water, eat food that is additive free, and wear a tin-foil hat (you know, just in case)?
Have you any 'scientific' peer-reviewed research on this? The linked author provides none, but then neither does he present any personal scientific credentials either.
One thing I will tell you though, is that if you had ever been in a milking-shed, 4" deep in
'bovine-faecal-matter', you would be very grateful for pasteurisation. The dairy farmers I knew and grew up amongst, would take some of their own milk, and put it in a big enamelled steel bowl on the Aga, and in so doing they'd a) pasteurise it, and b) allow some cream to rise to be skimmed off and used for cooking.
Now, if they pasteurised even their own milk, does that not lead one to imagine that it is on balance a good idea?
Or how about the sum-knowledge on Wikipedia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'A side effect of the heating of pasteurization is that some vitamin and mineral content is lost. Soluble calcium and phosphorus decrease by 5%, thiamin and vitamin B12 by 10%, and vitamin C by 20%.[10][26] Because losses are small in comparison to the large amount of the two B-vitamins present, milk continues to provide significant amounts of thiamin and vitamin B12. As milk is not an important dietary source of vitamin C, this loss is not nutritionally significant.
Proponents of non-pasteurized raw milk credit it with having more beneficial bacteria and enzymes than its processed counterpart; however, raw milk is far more likely to contain harmful microbial contaminants, and pasteurization is the only effective way of killing most pathogenic bacteria.'
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization
* Damn I can't help myself, here's just one example...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'The truth is: the human body has a hard time digesting pasteurized milk. When milk is pasteurized, its protein molecules - the casein - are changed. This strains the pancreas, forcing it to produce its own digestive enzymes to break the molecules down. This helps explain why many people develop milk allergies.
Like any enzyme-void food, pasteurized milk puts an enormous strain on the body's digestive function. Those with milk intolerance, a leaky gut, or poor digestion, pass the casein through the intestinal walls and into the blood stream'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right. Milk intolerance is due to a genetic variation, that causes the body to not produce the enzyme lactase. The latter is required to break down lactose. Lactose is the main milk sugar.
I know people who are lactose-intolerant. But I have never met any of the suggested 'many' people who have developed it. Have you?
I have no idea what a 'leaky gut' is, but if you're passing proteins directly into the bloodstream then I'd suggest you are gravely ill and in your last days.
In summary; the whole proposition is just so 10,000,000% complete and utter pollocks, that I really don't know how to say it any more politely.