On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
Please don't give out false information. You could literally be putting people's health and or lives at risk...
What false? The statement: "Raw milk is good" has nothing incorrect about it. It is unconditionally true. Its a value judgement, hence its universal validity in the context of the action whose subject it is. Hence also the universal validity of the anti-regulatory argument i presented, which is like a hammer of thunder, it clears all poison from the air, leaving only clarity, and truth to the field: that regulation is universally bad, and hence is to be eliminated.
Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff.
I think you are failing to realize that it is not reasonably safe to consume. Also on a less important note, many people, including myself, find the taste off-putting.
it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
It is preventing someone from ignoring health regulations. Had someone become infected, it could have easily spread to others who did not go out of their way to drink dangerous milk.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
Is it reasonable to let people do something that can harm not only themselves but those around them? How is this differant than drunk-driving or firing guns randomly into the air. These all can hurt those around you.
On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
"Look guy, your scientific evidence means nothing. The real matter here is that I'm a complete libertarian, and thus I don't agree with most of the stuff that exists in society today. I'm not here to have a logical discussion, I'm here to say that I don't care what you think: raw milk tastes good, it's mean to tell people what to do, and I think you're just a stubborn guy that doesn't want to let people do whatever they please - in other words, I don't like the fact that you aren't a libertarian like me.
Moreover, I feel that by writing in a completely esoteric format will dissuade you from continuing to object to my nonsense."
Sure. Whatever. I'll end with this:
The reason there are regulations on concepts such as selling unsafe foods is to increase health outlays. If one does not wish to comply with such regulation, one can do so in peace and in private. However, when one attempts to sell unregulated/unsafe food in a public location - one that requires a license - it becomes a problem.
That is all, have a lovely evening.
On August 07 2011 09:54 Probe1 wrote: FallDownMarigold you need to quote your reference. We can't see it without authorized access.
Truth be told, the guy asked ME to supply HIM with pub med links. I assumed he had full access to pub med linked journal articles as well. I guess he was just trying to take a freebie or something, but didn't actually have anything upon which he could base strong objections.
I'm in no real mood to go through some of these journal articles, but since you are a refreshingly logical/normal guy, I will oblige with a nice, colloquial review that is completely suitable to non-science nerds
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
This is ridiculously awful journalism. He just goes on a rant about corporatism without them actually discussing why the police is there in the first place.
EDIT: Haha, "I checked out your website, it's pretty cool, tell us more"
I'll pick up right where he left off if you care to back any of your statements with any evidence. Keep in mind that you're welcome to cite studies from anywhere on Earth, not just the "oppresive government of the United States".
I dare you. I dare you to prove raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk.
There are actually 133 pages of papers on pub med if you search "raw milk", all of which are available to me in full access.
The examples I'm linking are just a sprinkling of what seem like the more basic ones
I don't have an ID and don't really want to go through the process of registering. Is it possible that you could quote some relevant evidence of the safety of raw milk, or give a summary of the articles? Thanks.
There are actually 133 pages of papers on pub med if you search "raw milk", all of which are available to me in full access.
The examples I'm linking are just a sprinkling of what seem like the more basic ones
I don't have an ID and don't really want to go through the process of registering. Is it possible that you could quote some relevant evidence of the safety of raw milk, or give a summary of the articles? Thanks.
Certainly. Most articles on pub med are very scientific, so here's a nice review that is suitable to non-science nerds:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
What false? The statement: "Raw milk is good" has nothing incorrect about it. It is unconditionally true. Its a value judgement, hence its universal validity in the context of the action whose subject it is. Hence also the universal validity of the anti-regulatory argument i presented, which is like a hammer of thunder, it clears all poison from the air, leaving only clarity, and truth to the field: that regulation is universally bad, and hence is to be eliminated.
In other words, it has universal validity for the subject of xarthaz, and no one else.
So basically you're saying in one sentence that your statement is 100% irrefutable because you were talking about the context of you (which essentially makes it a useless waste of time, we are talking about society not xarthaz.
And then in the next sentence you're using that ("Hence") as the foundation for your typical extreme libertarian rant about irrefutable truths and how no one can rationally object to anything you're saying.
One sentence: I'm talking about myself, just myself, so it has 100% validity, I'm the only one who can say what I think is good, no one can put their judgment as above my own in that respect.
Next sentence: Since it is 100% valid for me it is also a 100% valid universal anti-regulatory argument (lolwut?)
(Remember, xarthaz forms all his opinions through impeccable logic based on self-evident, universal, irrefutable premises, including the impeccable logic and brilliant premises shown by his above quote)
On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
I hardly expect this to get through ur thick skull.. but, pathogenic microbe culture in raw milk are defined as zoonotic microbes. Such strains of bacteria/fungus/parasites get transmitted in-between animals. Which means one dairy cattle infected with say.. pathologic strains of brucellus or bacillus can mean the entire herd can get infected, and the pathogenic microbes they carry can get transmitted to humans by the milk they produce. If such cases are to happen, literally tens or hundreds of millions of people could be in danger.
There's no controversy in this post, no case.
It's fine if your village wants to take the risk and drink raw milk. Just be aware that ur village is in danger of endemic infection.
so, apparently, its not that they sold raw milk, its that they did so without the appropriate licenses. according to this article raw milk is not illegal, unlicensed raw milk is illegal. they arent banning it, they are just regulating it.
Raw milk prosecution draws LA protest
The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES
A raid on a health food store and its raw dairy products sparked a protest outside a Los Angeles courthouse Thursday where the market's owner was arraigned on charges of selling unlicensed, unpasteurized milk.
James Stewart, 64, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to commit a crime and a dozen other counts. A Superior Court judge said he could be released on $30,000 bail on the condition that he does not distribute unlicensed dairy products while freed.
His arraignment came a day after he, along with Ventura County farmer Sharon Palmer and her employee Eugenie Bloch, were arrested on charges of producing unlicensed, unpasteurized goat milk products.
Volunteers at Stewart's Rawesome market in Venice said investigators also raided the store, dumping all dairy products and seizing cash from the register.
Prosecutors said Rawesome has been selling food to the public for six years without permits. Supporters said the market is really a members-only club specializing in raw foods and they accuse the government of an unjustified crackdown on raw milk.
At the protest, they held signs that said "Um Hello?! It's Milk!" and yelled, "Hey, hey, FDA, don't take our milk away."
Unpasteurized milk is legal in California but it's regulated to meet health standards. In the past, unpasteurized milk has been blamed for outbreaks of bacterial illnesses.
Prosecutors accused Palmer of operating her Santa Paula-based Healthy Family Farms without the required licensing for milk production.
She was scheduled to be arraigned Friday on nine counts.
Bloch, who was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, pleaded not guilty Thursday and was released on her own recognizance.
The arrests came after a yearlong probe in which undercover investigators purchased unpasteurized goat milk, cheese and yogurt from Healthy Family Farms stands at farmers markets, according to a complaint.
Investigators also searched Rawesome in June 2010, seizing stacks of unmarked jugs of raw milk, cartons of raw goat and cow milk, and blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese, among other grocery items.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
i found another article too. the purpose of the licensing is to make sure the animals giving the raw milk are healthy and they arent selling tainted milk products.
"While it is lawful to manufacture and sell unpasteurized dairy products in California, applicable licenses and permits are required. These include regular veterinarian inspections of the animals and following equipment and sanitation requirements."
On August 07 2011 07:39 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Unpasteurized milk can be very dangerous specially in younger and older people. You aren't even allowed to buy it in the US for a reason. Now most people have never seen unpasteurized milk for that reason, now think about what happens if someone buys some milk thinking it's pasteurized and ends up giving it to their young child who then becomes very sick with diarrhea, stomach bug, or an even worse bug that was bothering the cow at the time. The kid could die because a company was trying to save a buck.
Now I think specialized cheese making companies should be able to buy unpasteurized milk in the US and that the pasteurizing process should be a bit slower, (the 3 ways you can pasteurize milk is 30 minutes at 130, 15 minutes at 160, or the final "ultra pasteurized" process used too often: 1 min at 200. The slower you go the more flavor the milk has. This US law regarding pasteurized milk has been around along time.
Rawesome foods was trying to get away with something plainly said just about everywhere. What they did is basically the same as running a red light and then running up on the curb to get to another street, almost hitting a crowd of people in the process. I hope no one got sick from a companies desire to save a buck on heating milk. If they did what they did to be the company that sells unpasteurized products, they should have moved to a country that allows it.
you are allowed to buy it. This is absolutely incorrect.
Oh? I have been looking for some for a while in order to pasteurize it and make some really good pastry cream. I will look around some more I guess. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for being incorrect.
On August 07 2011 09:57 NET wrote: Value judgement: I think murder is good, ergo I can kill people. Understand now?
Yes, if the subject of murder also thinks it is good. If he doesnt, it does not fulfill the gooness criterion.
Stop dodging, xarthaz.
Respond to this:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009;483-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009;6:793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)):1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
EPT
3-100.
