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.