Why does organic milk last so much longer than regular milk? (2008)

I did a quick search and got a similar trend for Europe overall (although, like that article, there were no serious citations). I wonder if it could be including commercial uses, such as in restaurants or for manufacturers of milk-derived products (but not cheese as it seems UHT ruins the proteins needed for that).

That's microfiltered milk and it's actually much worse than UHT:

Microfiltration (MF) of cheese milk has been proposed as an alternative to bactofugation for removal of bacterial spores. However, while good separation efficiency can be obtained, this technology has some drawbacks. First of all, for an efficient MF process, the milk would have to be skimmed prior to MF, which means that the cream phase, constituting ∼10% of milk volume, cannot be treated with MF and would require a high heat treatment to ensure inactivation of spores. Secondly, the MF retentate will typically constitute a considerably large volume than the bactofugate, again meaning that a large volume would have to be sterilized. Together, this could mean the involvement of a considerable proportion of sterilized materials being included in the cheese milk when applying MF for spore removal, with negative effects on cheese-making and cheese quality.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biolog...

In short, microfiltered milk is taken apart, sterilised or filtered separately, and then put back together again- probably the most processed kind of milk you can find in the market.

But the same is true for soda or tea.

Sometimes I just want almond milk to be cold right now. And also, the refrigerated milk section tends to be much easier to find than whatever place the store decides to put non refrigerated milks.

I think that's because they want to place the product in both the health food and dairy sections. I don't think it's from any desire to refrigerate it.

I’d consider it’s not about the safety ritual, but rather that both consumers and producers expect the almond milk to be found close to the milk.

Consumers because they think of it as milk, and thus it should in the same section. Producers because they want that association.

You're totally right! I haven't seen those since I was a kid and forgot them.

Yes, I see what you mean! How about milk that is organic and UHT at the same time? It seems like they are marketing to two very different consumer segments. I've never seen organic UHT milk here in Australia. Is it common elsewhere?

PS I'm not saying that UHT is necessarily lower quality, I'm talking exclusively about average consumer's perception.

That's not what pasteurized means. You are describing a different process.

And anyway the centrifuge process also allows for cream content higher than what the cow produces.

It’s rather the other way round. Pasteurization was invented at the end of the 19th century and quickly becoming widespread in the beginning of the 20th century (1910 in NY) when it was no longer feasible to have cows in urban centers and transportation took significant time. However, since then, the industrialization of milk production and the introduction of safety standards (cold storage, stainless steel vats to transport, mandatory testing,...) made processing raw milk safer, rather than riskier. Major TBC outbreaks were linked to raw milk - TBC linked to milk is basically a non-issue nowadays, even for raw milk.

Yes and no. Different nation has different laws and testing, and different methods for animal handling can increase disease risks. To take an direct example here from Sweden, if a farmers animal get tested positive for salmonella then most if not all the nearby animals are killed and possible even nearby neighboring farmers flocks just to be on the safe side. Raw milk also get tested a lot more since the risk are higher.

That said, while its true that we have kept cows for thousands of years without using pasteurization, there is a reason why the average life span is high and child mortality is low. We also used to milk the cow and then directly drink it, rather than collect it and store it for a extended period of time.

Milk contamination may occur in these ways:

* Animal feces coming into direct contact with the milk

* Infection of the udder (mastitis)

* Cow diseases (for example, bovine tuberculosis)

* Bacteria that live on the skin of animals

* Environment (for example, feces, dirt, and processing equipment)

* Insects, rodents, and other animal vectors

* Unsanitary conditions in milk processing plant

* Cross-contamination from dairy workers, such as contact with dirty clothing or boots

Source as linked in another comment: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

From my reading raw milk can be contaminated inside and outside the cow from such a myriad of sources and while cramped industrial farming might increase the likelihood of contamination it doesn't remotely eliminate the risks. Also note pasteurization practices originated prior to industrial farming

That's not what "objectively" means.

IMO this is a classic "no true scotsman". The CDC does not say anything about distance and time making raw milk any safer https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-an...

It kind of implies the opposite, that the bacteria don't need to multiply, they're already present.

Have you seen studies that show most outbreaks are from bacteria multiplying in the milk rather than contamination at the source? Since even raw milk is promptly cooled which greatly slows bacterial reproduction, I find it more likely that all the contamination needed to cause sickness happens during processing.