Working my way just now through a backlog of John Scott’s excellent research reports I came across this one:
Sarah Mummah, MPhil, Beibei Oelrich, MD, PhD, Jessica Hope, MSN, NP, Quyen Vu, BAH and Christopher D. Gardner, PhD, Effect of Raw Milk on Lactose Intolerance: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study, Ann Fam Med March/April 2014, doi: 10.1370/afm.1618. The trial was funded by the Weston A. Price Foundation and by Stanford’s Program in Human Biology.
Why?…. Yes, I know that some of those who have difficulty with ‘standard’ milk find that they can drink raw milk without any discomfort – and no doubt there are those who have claimed that their ‘lactose intolerance’ was cured by drinking raw milk. But all milks, cow, goat, sheep or human, be they raw or pasteurised, contain lactose. Lactose is a sugar present in milk which is completely unaffected by the pasteurisation. If you do not have sufficient of the enzyme lactase with which to digest the lactose sugar in the milk it will cause you digestive discomfort – whether it is raw or pasteurised. This is a fact, and one that is totally undisputed – and how rare is that in the world of allergy/sensitivity?
So why on earth were the Weston A. Price Foundation and Stanford’s Program in Human Biology doing a trial to discover whether drinking raw milk would improve the symptoms of someone who was lactose intolerant when pasteurisation is irrelevant to the ability of lactose to cause unpleasant symptoms in those who cannot tolerate it because of a dearth of the lactose enzyme? Why were they not, instead, looking at some of the other properties of raw milk versus pasteurised to see if they could find out why those who thrive on it do so when they cannot tolerate the pasteurised stuff?
Maybe I have missed something here but this seems to me a total waste of good money and research time – neither of which are exactly abundant. I am really surprised at the Weston Price Foundation.
Perhaps they thought some naturally present bacteria in the raw milk may ‘digest’ the lactose (as happens with probiotics in yoghurt), and thus reduce symptoms?
As we can test lactose levels to 70ppm (I learned recently) then I’m baffled why they just didn’t look at lactose content, instead of conducting a pilot human trial. Some other component in raw milk theoretically capable of mitigating effects of lactose in the lactase deficient?
I agree that there are more interesting things to look at when it comes to milk: setting aside CMPA, milk allergy and lactose intolerance, there are no other known sensitivities to milk – and yet many claim to suffer nasal symptoms / mucus production when inadvertently consuming milk. Is this a genuine adverse reaction? What is the mechanism? Who knows … but why aren’t we properly looking into it?
Absolutely………
Maybe they were testing the hypothesis that there are enzymes in un-pasteursied milk which help the gut deal deal more successfully with lactose. The fact that the study turned out negative doesn’t necessarily mean it wasn’t worth doing?
Hello, I agree, as my family has been using Raw Milk for awhile now and if anything it makes my symptoms WORSE. My son thrives on it, but he also can’t have too much dairy of any kind or he gets constipated and can get more susceptible to colds. I can use butter and cream though and I use it raw. I tolerate some goat’s milk products but not aged cheeses or yogurts because of histamine issues. So using “raw milk” is NOT a panacea for those who have milk-digestion issues, no, thanks for pointing this out to those who might get stuck thinking it should. 🙂
Hi Clarissa – my personal opinion is that if you are going to drink animal milk of any kind it would be better to drink it raw – provided, of course, you are sure it comes from a well run, hygienic dairy. As far as you are concerned, shame about the histamine issues as of course seriously aged cheese such as Parmesan have virtually no lactose left – see this article by dietitain Anita MacDonald.