IRWIN Foreman’s letter (September 21) makes a welcome contribution to the discussion surrounding the alleged link of our Dunsyre Blue cheese to the recent E.coli O157 outbreak of illness because he broadens the discussion into considering the safety of unpasteurised cheese in general.
First of all, Mr Freeman will be pleased to know that, when the possibility of an association with the illness was first raised at the end of July, we co-operated fully with the authorities and immediately took the relevant batch of cheese off the market. The only thing I don’t follow in Mr Freeman’s reasoning is the suggestion that an investigation is assisted by the destruction of the product being investigated.
On the broader discussion of the merits of pasteurisation which Mr Freeman outlines, I agree with him that raw milk used often to cause illness and that pasteurisation of liquid milk is a good thing because these days the milk people buy is not so fresh that the bactericides which are present in fresh raw milk are effective. Of course, historically almost all types of food made people ill from time to time because food was often not produced in hygienic conditions. What matters now is how food is produced today, rather than 50 years ago, and the evidence regarding raw milk cheese does not support the claim that it is unsafe.
The US Government’s Food and Drugs Administration, the biggest food safety organisation in the world (and not known for its enthusiasm for raw milk cheese) published in July this year the results of a major study on raw milk cheese. Its conclusion? That raw milk cheese is no more dangerous than other foods.
Humphrey Errington,
Walston Braehead Farm,
Carwath, Lanark.
I READ the letter from Irwin Foreman (September 21) with a certain level of scepticism with regard to the assertions regarding the effects of pasteurisation on milk. I realise that the draconian action of making raw milk illegal in Scotland is lauded by those who police the dairy industry, but facts appear to fly in the face of this legislation.
Raw milk is legally produced in England and the standards of hygiene are exceptionally high, but surely this should be the standard for all food production. However the inconvenient fact for the proponents of pasteurisation is that there are no frequent outbreaks of pathogen-caused illness and many of the producers have a mail order business for raw milk as well.
Milk is heavily processed – under the pretence of making it safe and healthy to drink. But the effect is quite the opposite: the final product is a dead liquid that bears little nutritional resemblance to natural milk.
Pasteurisation is touted as the key to ridding dairy products of bacteria and other pathogens. Unfortunately, it also kills all of their beneficial enzymes. It also destroys 100 per cent of vitamin A (and possibly vitamin C, as well), 38 per cent of B vitamins, and many amino acids.
Because it is denatured, pasteurised milk is incredibly hard for the body to digest. This is one reason why experts believe milk consumption is linked to diabetes and related diseases (because indigestibility places immense stress on the pancreas, which can lead to insulin resistance). And to top things off, pasteurisation often doesn’t even accomplish its intended purpose as research in the US found that one-third of pasteurised milk is still contaminated with pathogens.
I do not know the facts of the E.coli outbreak with the dreadful death of a toddler but I suspect that neither does Food Standards Scotland. I suspect this is a case of being guilty until proven innocent and I don't get the impression there is a great deal of effort being put into finding an alternative possible source.
David Stubley,
22 Templeton Crescent,
Prestwick.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel