Re: Food poisoning, raw milk and nutrition - RELATIVE RISK?

[Guest guest]

, thank you for posting this; it reminds me of something I wanted to e-mail

Sally about. After she spoke on " The Oiling of America " , she breezed through her

newer lecture on raw milk, as a bonus. She cited those numbers (1.9 cases per

100,000 for raw milk and 4.7 cases per 100,000 for pasteurized) and went on to

draw the conclusion that " the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming raw

milk is 2.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming

pasteurized milk " , as your post says.

This stood out as a glaring and hypocritical mistake to me, having not 20

minutes earlier heard Sally point out the fallacy of " relative risk " that many

research scientists use today to manipulate their results. Specifically, she

pointed out how 2 cases out of 1 billion is a 100% greater *relative risk* than

1 case out of 1 billion in a given trial, but that's a very misleading way to

look at the data, since it is only a 0.0000001% increase in *absolute risk*,

which is not statistically significant.

Well, it seems all too clear to me that saying that one is 2.5 times less likely

to get sick from raw milk versus pasteurized milk (based on those data) is

utilizing the same fallacious principal!

Am I missing something big and obvious here or should I e-mail Sally to tell her

of the mistake? There are plenty of statistically sound ways to present the data

on raw and pasteurized to make the same point without the implicit hypocricy.

Tom

Idol wrote:

> Some info from Gupta's mailing list:

>

> RAW MILK: Incidence of food-borne illness from raw milk – 1.9 cases per

> 100,000 people, 1973-1992. (American Journal Public Health Aug 1998, Vol

> 88., No 8)

>

> PASTEURIZED MILK: Based on CDC website, incidence of food-borne illness

> from all foods including pasteurized milk – 4.7 cases per 100,000 people,

> 1993-1997. (US Census Bureau 1997 population estimate 267,783,607)

>

> OTHER FOODS: Based on CDC website of reported food-borne illness from other

> foods – 6.4 cases per 100,000 people, per year from 1993-1997.

>

> THEREFORE, the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming raw milk is

> 2.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming

> pasteurized milk; and 3.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne

> illness from consuming other foods.

>

> On a case-by-case basis, persons consuming milk from ANY source (raw or

> pasteurized) are:

>

> 30 times more likely to become ill from fruits and vegetables

> 13 times more likely to become ill from beef

> 11 times more likely to become ill from chicken

> 10 times more likely to become ill from potato salad

> 2.7 times more likely to become ill from non-dairy beverages

>

> <http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/foodborne/default.htm>Source: MMWR

> Vol 45, No SS-5

>

> Given, from the above, that " Of All Foods, Milk has the Lowest Incidence of

> Reported Food-Borne Illnesses (0.2%) " ; and that the actual milk in

> question was never tested for bacteria as the source still was only alleged

> - the jump to the conclusion that the milk was the source for these

> illnesses by the so called experts is nothing short of hearsay masquerading

> as " expert science " .

>

> Effects of pasteurization on vitamin availability in milk:

>

> A No significant change

> B-1 Down 3-20%

> B-6 Inactivated

> B-12 Down 10% but carrier proteins inactivated

> Riboflavin Heat stable but light sensitive

> C Down 77% upon storage

> D Down, fortified (usually with bad synthetic D)

> E Down 15%

> K No significant change

>

> Effects of pasteurization on mineral availability in milk:

>

> Sodium No significant change

> Selenium Down 9.7%

> Iron Down 66%

> Copper Up 44%

> Zinc Down 69.4%

> Potassium No significant change

> Calcium Down 21%

> Magnesium No significant change

>

> I haven't included the whole post, which has this credit:

> Prepared by:

> Lee Dexter, President, <http://www.whiteegretfarm.com/>White Egret Farms

> Sally Fallon, President, <http://www.westonaprice.org/>The Weston A. Price

> Foundation

>

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

BUMP...see my post below. Does anyone have any input? TIA.

Tom

Tom Jeanne wrote:

> , thank you for posting this; it reminds me of something I wanted to

e-mail Sally about. After she spoke on " The Oiling of America " , she breezed

through her newer lecture on raw milk, as a bonus. She cited those numbers (1.9

cases per 100,000 for raw milk and 4.7 cases per 100,000 for pasteurized) and

went on to draw the conclusion that " the incidence of food-borne illness from

consuming raw milk is 2.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne illness

from consuming pasteurized milk " , as your post says.

>

> This stood out as a glaring and hypocritical mistake to me, having not 20

minutes earlier heard Sally point out the fallacy of " relative risk " that many

research scientists use today to manipulate their results. Specifically, she

pointed out how 2 cases out of 1 billion is a 100% greater *relative risk* than

1 case out of 1 billion in a given trial, but that's a very misleading way to

look at the data, since it is only a 0.0000001% increase in *absolute risk*,

which is not statistically significant.

>

> Well, it seems all too clear to me that saying that one is 2.5 times less

likely to get sick from raw milk versus pasteurized milk (based on those data)

is utilizing the same fallacious principal!

>

> Am I missing something big and obvious here or should I e-mail Sally to tell

her of the mistake? There are plenty of statistically sound ways to present the

data on raw and pasteurized to make the same point without the implicit

hypocricy.

>

> Tom

>

>

>

> Idol wrote:

>

>>Some info from Gupta's mailing list:

>>

>>RAW MILK: Incidence of food-borne illness from raw milk – 1.9 cases per

>>100,000 people, 1973-1992. (American Journal Public Health Aug 1998, Vol

>>88., No 8)

>>

>>PASTEURIZED MILK: Based on CDC website, incidence of food-borne illness

>>from all foods including pasteurized milk – 4.7 cases per 100,000 people,

>>1993-1997. (US Census Bureau 1997 population estimate 267,783,607)

>>

>>OTHER FOODS: Based on CDC website of reported food-borne illness from other

>>foods – 6.4 cases per 100,000 people, per year from 1993-1997.

>>

>>THEREFORE, the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming raw milk is

>>2.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne illness from consuming

>>pasteurized milk; and 3.5 times lower than the incidence of food-borne

>>illness from consuming other foods.

>>

>>On a case-by-case basis, persons consuming milk from ANY source (raw or

>>pasteurized) are:

>>

>>30 times more likely to become ill from fruits and vegetables

>>13 times more likely to become ill from beef

>>11 times more likely to become ill from chicken

>>10 times more likely to become ill from potato salad

>>2.7 times more likely to become ill from non-dairy beverages

>>

>><http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasites/foodborne/default.htm>Source: MMWR

>>Vol 45, No SS-5

>>

>>Given, from the above, that " Of All Foods, Milk has the Lowest Incidence of

>>Reported Food-Borne Illnesses (0.2%) " ; and that the actual milk in

>>question was never tested for bacteria as the source still was only alleged

>>- the jump to the conclusion that the milk was the source for these

>>illnesses by the so called experts is nothing short of hearsay masquerading

>>as " expert science " .

>>

>>Effects of pasteurization on vitamin availability in milk:

>>

>>A No significant change

>>B-1 Down 3-20%

>>B-6 Inactivated

>>B-12 Down 10% but carrier proteins inactivated

>>Riboflavin Heat stable but light sensitive

>>C Down 77% upon storage

>>D Down, fortified (usually with bad synthetic D)

>>E Down 15%

>>K No significant change

>>

>>Effects of pasteurization on mineral availability in milk:

>>

>>Sodium No significant change

>>Selenium Down 9.7%

>>Iron Down 66%

>>Copper Up 44%

>>Zinc Down 69.4%

>>Potassium No significant change

>>Calcium Down 21%

>>Magnesium No significant change

>>

>>I haven't included the whole post, which has this credit:

>>Prepared by:

>>Lee Dexter, President, <http://www.whiteegretfarm.com/>White Egret Farms

>>Sally Fallon, President, <http://www.westonaprice.org/>The Weston A. Price

>>Foundation

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>-