New research suggests that raw milk can pose serious health risks.
Two recent news articles have highlighted potential risks associated with raw milk.
In a surprising turn of events, two recent news articles have highlighted the potential risks associated with raw milk and its consumption. While some individuals may view raw milk as a fresh, natural, and unprocessed alternative to pasteurized milk, new research suggests that it can pose serious health risks.
The first article published by HuffPost reported that comedian Stephen Colbert identified an error in a merchandise design sold by Turning Point USA, a far-right pro-Trump group. The merchandise, which featured the phrase
New research co-authored by scientists at the National Institutes of Health found that a 'small but detectable quantity' of infectious H5N1 bird flu virus survived pasteurization in lab tests.
H5N1 bird flu virus was detected in milk samples from infected herds across farms in at least a dozen states.
One pasteurization method heated milk to 72 degrees Celsius for 15 seconds, which still had 'minute amounts of infectious virus'
A second pasteurization approach of heating milk for a half hour at 63 degrees Celsius was more effective and made infectious virus undetectable within minutes.
Very small amounts of infectious virus were detected after up to 20 seconds of heat treatment at 72 degrees C in one out of three samples.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(30%)
The article reports on a study that found small amounts of infectious H5N1 bird flu virus survived pasteurization in lab tests. However, the author fails to mention that this is not the same as finding infectious virus in milk from grocery stores or raw milk samples. The author also quotes an FDA spokesperson stating that previous studies did not turn up any infectious virus in retail dairy products and only some harmless fragments were found after pasteurization. This information was not disclosed to the reader until later in the article, making it selective reporting. Additionally, the author uses emotional manipulation by implying a threat to public health without providing sufficient context or evidence.
A small but detectable quantity of infectious H5N1 bird flu virus was able to survive a common approach to pasteurizing milk, according to new research co-authored by scientists at the National Institutes of Health.
So far, officials have not detected infectious virus in any supermarket milk samples. But the finding comes as authorities are still identifying new infected herds in this year’s unprecedented outbreak of H5N1 bird flu in dairy cattle.
What to know about the bird flu threat
Fallacies
(90%)
The article does not contain any formal logical fallacies. However, it does contain some inflammatory rhetoric and a slight misrepresentation of the findings. The inflammatory rhetoric comes from phrases such as
A "small but detectable quantity" of infectious H5N1 bird flu virus was able to survive a common approach to pasteurizing milk, according to new research co-authored by scientists at the National Institutes of Health.
Stephen Colbert identified an error in a merchandise design sold by Turning Point USA, a far-right pro-Trump group.
The merchandise, a T-shirt with the phrase ‘got raw milk?’ and an image of a cow, was incorrect as the depicted animal was actually a bull and not capable of producing milk.
Infectious H5N1 influenza viruses in raw milk rapidly decline with heat treatment in laboratory research.
Scientists at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) found that 63°C caused a 1010-fold decrease in infectious H5N1 virus levels within 2.5 minutes, while 72°C decreased levels by 104-fold within five seconds.
Very small amounts of infectious virus were detected after up to 20 seconds of heat treatment at 72°C in one out of three samples.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(95%)
The article contains an appeal to authority when it states 'Given the limited data on the susceptibility of avian influenza viruses to pasteurization methods used by the dairy industry, scientists at NIAID's Rocky Mountain Laboratories sought to quantify the stability of H5N1 virus in raw milk.' This implies that because scientists at NIAID are conducting research on this topic, their findings must be valid. However, this does not necessarily mean that their findings are free from fallacies or errors.
]Given the limited data on the susceptibility of avian influenza viruses to pasteurization methods used by the dairy industry, scientists at NIAID's Rocky Mountain Laboratories sought to quantify the stability of H5N1 virus in raw milk.[
The findings were published today in the New England Journal of Medicine
Interest in raw milk is soaring, and some states are moving to legalize its commercial sale.
Raw milk is unpasteurized milk.
Raw milk consumption can spread dangerous pathogens, including bacteria, that can result in serious disease or death.
,raw milk does not necessarily have to come from cows. Goats and sheep can also produce raw milk for human consumption.
,pasteurization is a food safety management tool integrated into the Standard Milk Ordinance in 1924 as a means of reducing foodborne illness, which can be life-threatening.
,raw milk is often framed as fresh, natural, unprocessed, and ‘safe’ despite the increased risk of foodborne illness.
,pasteurized milk is raw milk that has undergone a heated process that kills harmful microbial colonies. It is a requirement for health to denature proteins in food so that our bodies can use the building blocks of proteins, amino acids, for various cellular functions.
,raw milk puts people at a higher risk of getting sick from salmonella and e. Coli.
,pathogens can still be borne by organic milk and pose a problem for humans.
Accuracy
Raw milk puts people at a higher risk of getting sick from salmonella and e. Coli.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(70%)
The article presents a balanced view of the raw milk debate, discussing both its proponents and detractors. It includes quotes from registered dietitians who debunk common myths about raw milk and pasteurization. However, it does not present any new fallacies specific to Beth Ann Mayer's reporting or analysis.
Raw dairy evangelists repeat the claims that due to the lack of pasteurization and homogenization, it contains more nutrients, intact enzymes, probiotics and that even people with lactose intolerance can tolerate raw milk. (Body)]
] Despite more than a century of mainstream acceptance of pasteurisation’s health and safety benefits, raw milk is trending. (Body)
The desire for less processing in food overall and the increased interest in homemaking on social media has also played a role in the trending of raw milk. (Body)
Bias
(15%)
The author expresses a clear bias against raw milk and those who consume it, implying that they are being misled or intentionally spreading disinformation. She also uses language that depicts those who advocate for raw milk as 'raw dairy evangelists' and 'wellness influencers' with large followings, giving the impression that they are extremists or unreasonable.
For some who are spreading this disinformation content around raw milk is clickbait/rage bait designed to boost likes and comments, ultimately helping these creators' videos/content appear more highly in their communities' algorithms...
Interest in raw milk is soaring, and some states are moving to legalize its commercial sale. This potential change in legislation challenges the long-standing advice to pasteurize milk...
Raw milk is not necessarily organic. It also does not necessarily have to come from cows, as goats and sheep can also produce raw milk for human consumption...
The desire for less processing in food overall and the increased interest in homemaking on social media has also played a role in the trending of raw milk...
Researchers found small amounts of infectious bird flu virus in raw milk samples after pasteurization using a standard method.
U.S. dairy cows were found to have bird flu in March, and a fifth of the U.S. milk supply was estimated to contain strands of virus by the FDA.
Heat-treatment at 72 degrees C for 20 seconds resulted in very small amounts of infectious virus being detected in one of three samples.
Within 2.5 minutes, treatment at 63 degrees C caused a marked decrease in infectious H5N1 virus levels.
Accuracy
Very small amounts of infectious virus were detected after up to 20 seconds of heat treatment at 72°C in one out of three samples.
Deception
(80%)
The article reports on a study that found small amounts of bird flu virus remained in milk after pasteurization. While the authors note that this finding should not be used to draw conclusions about the safety of the U.S. milk supply and emphasize that their experimental conditions are not identical to industrial pasteurization processes, Nancy Lapid's reporting includes editorializing and sensationalism by stating 'In raw milk samples spiked with high amounts of bird flu virus, small amounts of infectious virus were still detectable after treatment with a standard pasteurization method.' This statement implies that the findings from this study are significant and directly relevant to the safety of the U.S. milk supply, which is not explicitly stated in the study.
In raw milk samples spiked with high amounts of bird flu virus, small amounts of infectious virus were still detectable after treatment with a standard pasteurization method.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article discusses a study that found small amounts of infectious bird flu virus remained in milk after pasteurization under certain experimental conditions. The author reports on the findings without implying that the U.S. milk supply is unsafe, acknowledging the limitations of the study and emphasizing that more research is needed. However, an appeal to authority is made by quoting a researcher's statement without providing context or critical analysis.
The findings reflect experimental conditions in a laboratory and should not be used to draw any conclusions about the safety of the U.S. milk supply, according to the authors of the study from the U.S. government's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Rocky Mountain Laboratories.
