California Raids Rawesome Food - Page 17

On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote:
Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.

xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.

On August 07 2011 11:41 xarthaz wrote:
From your argument it follows that everyone should have their brain put into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, because that is the safest, longest life possible.

On August 07 2011 11:45 xarthaz wrote:
FallDownMarigold, you yourself denounced the use of safety argument, there is no more need to address it. Look:


Your latest argument was an appeal to what a group of people think ("normal people"), not an argument of appeal to safety

On August 07 2011 11:41 xarthaz wrote:

Again, appeal to safety. From your argument it follows that everyone should have their brain put into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, because that is the safest, longest life possible.

This is a compliance test - its purpose is to verify whether the premise of the person really is safety, or whether it is just a convenient excuse for justifying the action of government.

On August 07 2011 11:44 mahnini wrote:

ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).

arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.

The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.

Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.

Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.

How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)

On August 07 2011 11:48 xarthaz wrote:

How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)

On August 07 2011 11:48 xarthaz wrote:

How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)

Safest by what standards? I can think of many ways in which life as a brain in an incubator could be
much less safe than life as a brain inside a working body.

On August 07 2011 11:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:


It's an extreme. It's absurd. Quit trolling.

On August 07 2011 11:52 Grunor wrote:
So by your resoning xarthaz, anyone who agrees with safety labels, also agrees that everyone should have their brain put into a subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, it sounds to me like you are trying to use a strawman argument.

If the product they are selling had nothing wrong with it, or no potential to have anything wrong with it, why were they not regulated, or have a trading permit for the products?

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but its a link that may give some more information on this http://da.co.la.ca.us/mr/080311a.htm

Safe by whatever definition you like, i just used life maximization as common condiiton

No. The brain in chamber argument follows from the premise that "government should do what is safe".

On August 07 2011 11:54 xarthaz wrote:
Safe by whatever definition you like, i just used life maximization as common condiiton

Thats my point. That the safety fetishism, when taken to its logical conclusion, is absurd. Hence it not being a consistent premise for the debate at hand, and is to be rejected to maintain logical rigor.

No. The brain in chamber argument follows from the premise that "government should do what is safe".
the support for milk regulation can be for other reasons too, of course, just the main one that was employed in this thread was the "government should do what is safe" one.

On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote:
Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.

On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote:
Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.

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.

Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.

On August 07 2011 12:04 dAPhREAk wrote:


try reading the regulation/legislation and the minimal safety standards it requires.

On August 07 2011 12:04 FallDownMarigold wrote:


My pleasure:



References:

US Department of Agriculture. Know your farmer. Know your food. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/knowyourfarmer?navid=KNOWYOURFARMER. Updated 18 August 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.

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).

Rangel JM, Sparling PH, Crow C, Griffin PM, Swerdlow DL. Epidemiology of Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreaks, United States, 1982–2002. Emerg Infect Dis 2005;11: 603-609.

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.

Bell M. Perceptions of raw milk's risks and benefits. Research brief 83. University ofWisconsin, Madison. July 2010. http://www.cias.wisc.edu/economics/perceptions-of-raw-milk’s-risks-and-benefits-research-brief-83/. Accessed 30 August 2010.

That does not define the question at hand. The question at hand is justification of the action(of rawsome bust), not description of the action employed to do it.

On August 07 2011 08:05 NET wrote:
You can probably go buy legal raw milk, because I have seen it sold before, its just to me, its counter intuitive to buy such a product. Just make sure they have warning labels on it and that's as far as we can go on regulating that product.