Yet Another Poor Study Shows Benefits For Organic

There are many studies that show benefits to organic foods over traditional foods, with an equal number showing no difference at all. The only difference is that the ones showing no difference are usually of a greater scale, both in sample size and time. This new study is of decent size, twenty-two brands in all, done over two years. They sampled milk during the winter and during the summer and it's that bit of info that I find interesting, which I'll get to in a bit.

The study was measuring levels of various fatty compounds in the milk and it found that organic milks had higher levels of good fats and lower levels of bad fats. Ohh, but the story isn't nearly that simple. As I mentioned, measurements were taken during the summer and winter, which produced wild fluctuations in fat levels for both conventional and organic. This indicates, as they mention in the article, that diet likely has a large part to play, since both milk and meat from grass-fed cows is lower in fat than cows fed with feed products. But one then has to ask, why bother advocating organic foods and not simply say we should feed our cows grass? Easy! You can't get self-righteous about grass.

Moreover, there are areas where conventional milk did better than organic, namely one C12 and all four measures of C14 fats. It is too much of a stretch to advocate organic from this study, or any of the other studies measuring similar things, even from a purely healthful perspective.

One interesting aspect of the data that they briefly mention in the article is that bad fats appear to be trending up in both types of milk as time goes on and good fats are trending down. Obviously, within ten years, cows will be producing 100% butter directly from their udders.

Organic Milk Better For You?

I'm not convinced. Generally, I'm skeptical of anything having to do with organic-this, or artisan-that. That's not to say that some studies haven't shown differences, but more studies have shown benefits in the other direction. Generally, no difference is found, but especially regarding produce, those nasty, industrial, chemically grown fruits and veggies are more frequently better for you than their organic counterparts.

I'm often proven right because organic food has little to do with actual health and everything to do with damning the man. Just because a hypothesis seems right in your head doesn't mean that it's going to be borne out in experiments. And when your primary motivation is moral and social, your scientific sense is going to be clouded.

As it is with this study. I can think of one big thing and that is that organic milks are almost always pasteurized by the ultra-high-temperature process. Anyone who's done a taste test between milks knows that UHTP changes the flavor of the milk significantly, and anyone who's ever tried to steam milk for espresso knows that the chemical changes are significant enough to make it annoyingly difficult. That means that major chemical changes are happening in UHTP milks in comparison to standard milks. Was this controlled for? I don't know, but I'd like to know. Did they include control milks? Those that are produced on gigantic scales but are not organic, like Parmalat?

Again, without details, I won't say this is bunk, but I'm suspicious. I find it especially laughable that the lead researcher recommends that everyone switch to organic. For one thing, has she noticed that organic costs TWICE AS MUCH as excellent non-organic, and three times as much as standard Wal-Mart milk. To say that people should just triple their spending on one of the Western life's staples is ridiculous. And what about milk-steaming, espresso fiends like me, huh? What of us?!

Organic milk is better for you, say scientists

Raw Milk.

I generally side with the scientists, and they say raw milk has no benefits in comparison to pasteurized milk, nor does it cure anything. But, it HAS to taste different. Even though pasteurization doesn't take the milk past its heat tolerance point, it gets it damned close. Changes in chemical structure do occur, as any scientist will admit, and I'd love to find out how raw milk tastes. I'm healthy enough, I think that I can take a shot of ebola, or hanta, or whatever raw milk carries.

If you're drinking Hood, stop, and start drinking Rhody Fresh. If you're drinking Rhody Fresh, stop and start ordering from Munroe Dairy. Munroe's 2% tastes better than Hood's whole. There's a big difference. So I'm left to wonder if there can even be a big difference moving from Munroe to raw. I'm especially intrigued because of my latte making. Steaming milk requires the proteins and fats in milk, both of which are damaged by heat. Could raw be the sweet, creamy, milk-filled, holy grail of latte production?

I'm going to try, and if you want to, this page has the info you need. Be aware of the risks. You can get sick from this! It's of a low probability, but it can happen. As for me, I look forward to my lattes.

Pasteurization Without Representation (The Atlantic)