California Raids Rawesome Food - Page 19

On August 07 2011 12:49 xarthaz wrote:
Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such.

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.

Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such.

On August 07 2011 12:49 xarthaz wrote:


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.

It is the fundamental ends whose purpose science serves, and whom can be addressed directly, bypassing the science.

On August 07 2011 13:24 dAPhREAk wrote:
lol. you guys are still at it with him? you arent going to convince him of anything (assuming he isnt just trolling you). don't waste your breath (or in this case typing).

On August 07 2011 13:27 FallDownMarigold wrote:


I keep poking in, hoping to only read, but I keep finding myself unable to let his bullshit go unscathed. Undoubtedly there are people reading what he writes and taking it for truth if it goes uncontested. That's not right

On August 07 2011 13:07 ClanRH.TV wrote:
If people want to risk drinking raw milk then so be it. While were at it lets legalize marijuana since that is something that can only hurt the people who use it. No sense in taking away the rights from people to do things that may or may not only hurt themselves.

On August 07 2011 06:49 NET wrote:


Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend.
Foodborne Illness.

E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.

We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.

I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.

Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.

Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.

Edit:

My personal view on all of the Omegas, not just 3s are good for your health. Its a relatively a new concept, but the medical world is slowly, but truly beginning to realize their significance. I'm no expert on the subject so here is a link that may explain some things. I got this link after watching a world renown doctor talk about it on the the Dr. Oz show, Omega 3

On August 07 2011 14:06 Cyba wrote:


I literarily grew up drinking boiled goat's milk from the yard so please don't bore me with exagerated claims of how dangerous some milk is. Besides the point in my post was it's safe as long as you boil it and the reason it's not allowed in some countries is that you don't want imbecils killing themselves with sour milk.

Since you're such a well documented fellow throw us a few links with people geting e coli and dieing from cow's milk.

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.

On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote:
this thread is so fucked up.

out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.

Thats like 1 in 214,000.

I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet

Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.

its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!

bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.

On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote:
this thread is so fucked up.

out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.

Thats like 1 in 214,000.

I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet

Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.

its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!

bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.

On August 07 2011 14:40 FallDownMarigold wrote:

Yep. It's all because of the all-powerful dairy lobby. Those scientists and their independently corroborated findings sought out of scientific pursuit and curiosity? Nah, it's really just a farce to keep the small man down. Down with the guvernmint

/tinhat

On August 07 2011 14:45 caradoc wrote:


good argument. rather than dealing with logic, you resort to labelling the person making the argument.

/ignore

On August 07 2011 14:45 caradoc wrote:
good argument. rather than dealing with logic, you resort to labelling the person making the argument.

/ignore