|
On August 07 2011 12:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society. So no, we don't need to provide you with this, this, and that, you have a very shallow understanding of the complexity of human society and human interaction, especially individual human interaction with the social construct "society." It's funny, apparently to be right, we need to come up with a utopian system for society. Guys, you grab the coffee, I'll grab the weed, we're going to be up all night brainstorming the perfect society. Because otherwise, you know, we're wrong. If we can't fix all of humanity's problems right here in this thread, we are wrong and xarthaz is right. Is this really how the Austrian School develops minds to defend its ideas, xarthaz? What an anti-intellectual movement the Austrian School must be if you are typical of the kind of thinking it produces. If you reject a universal (nonsubjective) definition on safety, an argument of appeal to safety cannot be the justification of the rawsome bust.
|
On August 07 2011 12:08 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:04 dAPhREAk wrote: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. try reading the regulation/legislation and the minimal safety standards it requires. Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:04 FallDownMarigold wrote: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. My pleasure: 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. 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 ; 48  3-100. 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.
Incorrect. The question at hand:
"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"
P.S. is English your second language? Just curious
1) the rawsome bust was due to noncompliance with FDA regulation
2) your long-winded argument - the one i'm addressing here - centered around the safety of raw milk. it had utterly nothing to do with the rawsome bust. caught you dead in your confusion, haven't I?
seriously, you need to stop conflating situations and merging your arguments. you are a mindfuck. it's getting really, really annoying. i'm not sure why no one has punished you for such flagrant trolling
|
If you reject a universal (nonsubjective) definition on safety, an argument of appeal to safety cannot be the justification of the rawsome bust.
Of course it can be, through the method I mentioned in the very first paragraph of my quote. Did I say can be? I meant is, because I was talking about the real world, not your fantasy world of bad premises and bad logic.
Nonsubjective definitions are impossible, this is why some people agree with something and some people disagree, this is why there are winners and losers, being a part of the perpetual losers of the political contest in the real world you should know that. Society is too complex and interdependent to be maintained in an atmosphere of absolute individual autonomy, just as it is too dependent on a great degree of individual initiative to be maintained in an atmosphere where the individual is regarded as a cog in a machine.
|
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
FallDownMarigold: the FDA regulation is only a means to a further ends, not the ultimate ends, that much the statists agree upon, right. And the ultimate ends, in this thread, has been presented as being safety, hence the argumentation i have employed.
|
And all you've ended up doing is showing how contradictory and absurd you are 
And also prone to dissolving into incoherence
The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
If only you were capable of showing this, your brain-in-a-jar attempt to do so was pretty bad.
|
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote:
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
|
A lot of people seem to be arguing that if the cows are on a small farm, or eating grass, or whatever ideal conditions you want, then maybe raw milk would be okay.
Well, 100 years ago, dairy farming was a lot more like that. But here is what happened in 1898:
The final proof of the benefits of pasteurized milk came when Straus began providing milk to an orphanage that had seen death rates as high as 42% from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases. The orphanage was located on Randall’s Island in the East River. All the milk it used was provided by a single herd of cows kept on the island, so it was easy to control the milk the orphans drank.
Straus started pasteurizing the orphanage’s milk in 1898. Within a year, the mortality rate dropped to 28%, and continued downward in the years that followed.
So, the risks of raw milk are not specific to modern dairy farming. I'm not saying they're helping anything (there are certainly problems with the agriculture industry), but even under "ideal" dairy farming conditions, raw milk still transmits deadly, contagious diseases.
Note: this quote came from a quick search, and was used as a good illustrative example. This same information can be found in verifiable (but more dry) resources as well.
|
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
|
On August 07 2011 12:28 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field.
|
On August 07 2011 12:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote:
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall. Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe. Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out. Brain in chamber is more safe than brain in hazardous world environment, is it not correct? Where is the error then. You yourself admitted that that FDA public policy follows from safety.
|
On August 07 2011 12:33 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote:
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall. Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe. Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out. Brain in chamber is more safe than brain in hazardous world environment, is it not correct? Where is the error then. You yourself admitted that that FDA public policy follows from safety.
It's an absurd extreme that takes no moderation into account. A brain in a chamber would obviously have all sorts of terrible inconveniences associated with it, some of which would lead to decreased safety in other areas.
You know what? This is ridiculous. Fuck you (for being such a flagrant troll), I'm done. Bye
|
On August 07 2011 12:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:28 xarthaz wrote:
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not. Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field.
On August 07 2011 12:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote:
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall. Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe. Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
Again, argument shifted. No longer is the argument for support of government action an appeal to safety. Now, it is instead an appeal to authority, or experts. If a government funded group of certified experts valued you or your family as threats to state and were to be eliminated, would you then too support this action?
You make your own trap gentlemen. You appeal to a universal truth that you cannot hope to be able to defend. It is easy to find a weak spot and target it, rendering the argument questionable.
|
On August 07 2011 12:36 xarthaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:30 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 07 2011 12:28 xarthaz wrote:
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not. Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field. Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote:
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall. Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe. Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out. Again, argument shifted. No longer is the argument for support of government action an appeal to safety. Now, it is instead an appeal to authority, or experts. If a government funded group of certified experts valued you or your family as threats to state and were to be eliminated, would you then too support this action? You make your own trap gentlemen. You appeal to a universal truth that you cannot hope to be able to defend. It is easy to find a weak spot and target it, rendering the argument questionable.
No. You shifted the argument. It's not an appeal to authority. There is tons of research laid out for you. You can refute it if you like - but you haven't, nor will you. You led us all on this retarded tangent. Cya.
|
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
|
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote:
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
And when he can't refute the evidence provided by others, he shifts his argument elsewhere, and obfuscates the entire situation with absurd pseudo-intellectual crap. Just leave him alone. Quit feeding the troll.
|
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote:
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
Nah he is just against laws.
|
No, to reiterate,
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goal.
|
On August 07 2011 12:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote:
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others. And when he can't refute the evidence provided by others, he shifts his argument elsewhere, and obfuscates the entire situation with absurd pseudo-intellectual crap. Just leave him alone. Quit feeding the troll. On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote:
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such. Or in this case, it has relevance BECAUSE it shows public policy being in support of the real end, safety. That is the goal of the policy. Science is only a tool for it. My posts have been ignoring the science part for good reason, because they go straight for the root (safety as an ends of public policy)rather than the tools it uses.
It is not a tangent to the thread, it is the very root of the thread. It is the fundamental ends whose purpose science serves, and whom can be addressed directly, bypassing the science.
This is an uncommon approach though, and somewhat abstract and difficult to understand for those not used to debate revolving it so it takes a bit of thinking to grasp well.
|
On August 07 2011 12:45 xarthaz wrote:
No, to reiterate,
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goal.
What about justifying the actions of the government based on the fact that this guy broke the law? Whether you agree with a law or not, you are expected to abide by them. Your personal feelings about the law or the rationale behind it is really irrelevant to the discussion. We can't have a society where people decide on an individual level which laws they want to follow based on their personal beliefs or feelings. If you disagree with a law or regulation, there are proper way to go about fighting it. Blatantly violating it isn't isn't one of them.
This isn't about organic foods. It isn't about food safety or whatever. It's about a guy that tried to ignore the system and got burned by doing so. Sure, questions can be raised about how exactly the government should have gone about stopping his actions and whether a raid was necessary or excessive, but that's about it. Arguing about the differences between raw milk and pasteurized milk or corruption in the FDA is just deflecting the discussion from the actual issue at hand.
|
On August 07 2011 12:27 bakesale wrote:A lot of people seem to be arguing that if the cows are on a small farm, or eating grass, or whatever ideal conditions you want, then maybe raw milk would be okay. Well, 100 years ago, dairy farming was a lot more like that. But here is what happened in 1898: Show nested quote +The final proof of the benefits of pasteurized milk came when Straus began providing milk to an orphanage that had seen death rates as high as 42% from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases. The orphanage was located on Randall’s Island in the East River. All the milk it used was provided by a single herd of cows kept on the island, so it was easy to control the milk the orphans drank.
Straus started pasteurizing the orphanage’s milk in 1898. Within a year, the mortality rate dropped to 28%, and continued downward in the years that followed. So, the risks of raw milk are not specific to modern dairy farming. I'm not saying they're helping anything (there are certainly problems with the agriculture industry), but even under "ideal" dairy farming conditions, raw milk still transmits deadly, contagious diseases. Note: this quote came from a quick search, and was used as a good illustrative example. This same information can be found in verifiable (but more dry) resources as well.
People live in a fantasy bubble. They think because people aren't dropping dead left and right from the stuff that used to kill people en masse, that the danger is gone and they shouldn't bother with those annoying safety procedures that were instituted to get rid of the danger.
Raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk. You can get organic pasteurized milk no problem, so it has nothing to do with organic. We're trading taste for safety. It's a pretty damn good trade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
