Boy!!!  Did I miss something!?!?  I could not find one word about
killing bacteria by cooling.  I agree with David Wright; cooling will
only slow the growth of bacteria.  I would guess/intuit that if you
wanted to kill the bacteria by cooling, then you would have to get the
temperature down so low that it would also crack the enzymes and kill
the beneficial bacteria and then all of the green-health types would
be complaining about that.

My rule of thumb when reading FDA material is:  If they say a positive
logical statement, it is most certainly true.  This is why I was
hoping to actually learn something useful about killing bacteria with
cooling.  (But they didn't say that, and I suspect that sophia was
being ingenuous.)  If they say that X does Y, then it is probably
true.  If they say a negative logical statement, particularly about a
green-health type idea, then it is usually a meaningless statement.
My favorite one is:  "Stevia is not a sweetener"  or "There is no
scientific proof that stevia is safe".  Of course, it is impossible to
prove a negative, and for stevia or anything else to be proven to be
safe, one would have to prove a negative.  So, the FDA's saying that
raw milk is bad for people without any redeeming qualities is just a
waste of hot air.

Less than 400 people are harmed each year by raw milk (a positive
logical statement, which I assume to be true), but probably
150,000,000 people drink milk in the FDA's jurisdiction.  The
reduction in the quality of health by drinking pasturized milk could
be very slight but with 150,000,000 drinking it, pasturized milk could
still be worst than raw milk.  Like most perspective retarded/deranged
people, the FDA sees the spectacular and misses the subtle.  Someone
dying from food poisoning is spectacular; noticing millions of
people's health being marginally negatively impacted by pasturization
is subtle.

For me, the issue is still an open question.

Boy!!!  Did I miss something!?!?  I could not find one word about
killing bacteria by cooling in that article.  I agree with David
Wright; cooling will
only slow the growth of bacteria.  I would guess/intuit that if you
wanted to kill the bacteria by cooling, then you would have to get the
temperature down so low that it would also crack the enzymes and kill
the beneficial bacteria and then all of the green-health types would
be complaining about that.

My rule of thumb when reading FDA material is:  If they say a positive
logical statement, it is most certainly true.  This is why I was
hoping to actually learn something useful about killing bacteria with
cooling.  (But they didn't say that, and I suspect that RF was
being ingenuous.)  If they say that X does Y, then it is probably
true.  If they say a negative logical statement, particularly about a
green-health type idea, then it is usually a meaningless statement.
My favorite one is:  "Stevia is not a sweetener"  or "There is no
scientific proof that stevia is safe".  Of course, it is impossible to
prove a negative, and for stevia or anything else to be proven to be
safe, one would have to prove a negative.  Never mind that it is
obvious that sugar is unbelievably bad for people;  I wonder how many
people die from sugar each year and how many reports of even the
slightest problem from the use of stevia.  Anyway, so, the FDA's
saying that
raw milk is bad for people without any redeeming qualities is just a
waste of hot air.

Less than 400 people are harmed each year by raw milk (a positive
logical statement, which I assume to be true), but probably
150,000,000 people drink milk in the FDA's jurisdiction.  The
reduction in the quality of health by drinking pasturized milk could
be very slight but with 150,000,000 drinking it, pasturized milk could
still be worst than raw milk.  Like most perspective retarded/deranged
people, the FDA sees the spectacular and misses the subtle.  Someone
dying from food poisoning is spectacular; noticing millions of
people's health being marginally negatively impacted by pasturization
is subtle.

For me, the issue is still an open question.

From the Mayo Clinic:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/e-coli/DS01007/METHOD=print&DSECTION=all

1    E. coli bacteria also can spread from one
surface to another, which means that bacteria on a
cow's udder or on equipment can end up in milk.
Pasteurization kills the bacteria, but raw milk
can be a source of infection. Other foods that may
become contaminated with E. coli include dry-cured
sausage, salami and unpasteurized apple juice and
apple cider.

2    Drink pasteurized milk, juice and cider. Any
boxed or bottled juice kept at room temperature is
likely to be pasteurized, even if the label
doesn't say so.

From DrWeil.com:

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA132755

 Q     
Listeria on the Loose?
I'm shocked that so much food has to be recalled
because of Listeria. Where does this disease come
from, and how can we avoid it?
A    
Answer (Published 11/14/2002)

Updated on 4/4/2005

You may be surprised to hear that every year some
2,500 Americans develop listeriosis and 500 die
due to this disease, which is caused by eating
food contaminated with the bacteria Listeria
monocytogenes, which occurs in soil and water and
can cause severe diseases (i.e. septicemia,
meningitis, and encephalitis). Both animal and
vegetable foods can become contaminated from soil
or from manure used as fertilizer. Animals can
carry the organism without appearing ill. Listeria
is killed by pasteurization, and should be
destroyed by the heat used to cook ready-to-eat
meats. However, less-than-optimal manufacturing
practices can allow contamination to occur after
processing.

Dr Weil has ONLY an M.D. from Harvard.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK guys, it's time to find a little hole for your
ideas.

RF