|
On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. (source )
|
On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
|
On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. ( source )
Still awaiting rigorous proof that all the scientific data previously provided via PubMed, etc - here in this thread - is irrelevant in the face of the alleged preeminent issue of lobbying and trickery. Don't bother posting an article or something from a blog. I want a legitimate analysis, of similar quality to the stuff posted earlier in this thread, detailing the specifics of how milk is regulated not because of health outlays, but rather because of teh_lobbyz.
|
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 ( source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk ( source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year) 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. *1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009
1% of Americans consume raw milk so it's more like 2-3 million
Also
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5822a1.htm
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death.
For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it.
|
Thank you FallDownMarigold, I was going to attempt the literature hunting but that was just...magnificent. A good moral to this story is that first-hand experience does not equate to sufficient evidence. Here is the reason why:
When looking at something like foodborne illness, it may be that only one in every hundred million products will result in an infection. If you are a single family comsuming enough to equate to roughly 10,000 units of product over your life, your family has approximately a 1 in 1,000 chance of infection. If you take 1,000 families though, you suddenly see a very high chance of someone in one of those families contracting an infection.
That entire thought experiment assumed completely independant products, so there was no "mixing" of products to transmit the disease to more products. I can guarentee you that this ideal situation has unrealistic assumptions. Products do mix and there is always a chance of contagion hopping ship from one thing to another. This further increases the chances of potential infection on the consumer side.
So to summarize, even though you grew up drinking boiled goats milk, it is still not safe for consumption. You may have had no problems but I can guarentee you that treating milk in accordance to US federal guidelines makes it much safer for consumption than just boiling it.
|
Can I just throw this out there? Our ancestors, going all the way back to the first humans to farm, irrigate, and cultivate, drank raw cow milk, ate un-processed fruits and vegetables. As it turned out, that was very successful, they survived. But now we have people eat frozen, preserved, and processed GMOS that can lead to health problems we didn't have to deal with before.
Now, a company has tried to sell raw foods that some say don't pose the same health issues and we have eaten for years without growing a second head.
That company is shut down by modern society claiming the food to be dangerous to eat.
What?
|
On August 07 2011 14:55 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
Can I just throw this out there? Our ancestors, going all the way back to the first humans to farm, irrigate, and cultivate, drank raw cow milk, ate un-processed fruits and vegetables. As it turned out, that was very successful, they survived. But now we have people eat frozen, preserved, and processed GMOS that can lead to health problems we didn't have to deal with before.
Now, a company has tried to sell raw foods that some say don't pose the same health issues and we have eaten for years without growing a second head.
That company is shut down by modern society claiming the food to be dangerous to eat.
What?
yeah, because health standards in the past were so prevalent. we should just throw out all the medicine and science of the last couple hundred years because "we survive."
|
On August 07 2011 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
|
|
|
On August 07 2011 14:58 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized). false dichotomy. The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this. In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
|
And look, Caradoc, if you're going to play on the side of raw milk proponents, that's totally fine. Let me suggest, however, that you adhere to their strongest arguments.
1) Pasteurization induces a degree of nutrient breakdown/loss in milk, and proteolysis/hydrolysis of beneficial enzymes.
2) Pasteurization induces apoptosis of beneficial bacteria in addition to harmful bacteria.
Your argument instead focuses on some kind of conspiracy-esque nature of "lobbyists" and such that really holds no weight. You'd be better suited to stick to what might actually be verifiable with proper research (although unlikely). Currently, both of those arguments aren't strongly supported given current data, but it's a more reasonable school of thought than this "da man wants ter keep da farmers down" bullshit. Sorry to be blunt.
|
On August 07 2011 14:53 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +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 ( source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk ( source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year) 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. *1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009 1% of Americans consume raw milk so it's more like 2-3 million Also http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5822a1.htmShow nested quote +Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death. For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it.
if you read the source, its 3% consume raw milk.
alright then though, so you add 137 to the original 42, assuming that none are cross reported, and you still have 179 out of 9 million, which is still ridiculously low compared to illness from other sources.
|
On August 07 2011 15:02 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:58 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized). false dichotomy. The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this. In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO). why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
so whats the point?
I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread)
The point of talking here is to delineate the reality of the situation, that the regulatory framework reflects at times profit rather than evidence based science and/or the public good.
|
On August 07 2011 15:05 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 15:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:58 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized). false dichotomy. The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this. In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO). why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done. so whats the point? I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread)
hell yeah; we are in agreement. now lets go watch the colbert report. because that guy is (r)awesome.
edit: lol, raw milk has certain frequencies based on credible scientific evidence. rawesome employees got their facts straight!
|
Serious bacteria can come from dairy that hasn't been stored, treated, and transported in proper methods. The diseases they cause can spread to other people. You can get some pretty nasty stuff spreading through the population before you realize where the source is from.
This is why the FDA cracks down so hard on places that do not follow public health guidelines.
You understand that drug use can be a public hazard. Well, the danger from unchecked disease is a greater threat to humans than some random junkies wandering around. That's why they shut this place down.
Imagine the outrage if the FDA and CDC didn't shut this place down and then some epidemic spread from the foods this place was selling. Then we'd see an article on TL.net on how incompetent the government is for not preventing the epidemic.
|
On August 07 2011 15:05 caradoc wrote:
The point of talking here is to delineate the reality of the situation, that the regulatory framework reflects profit rather than evidence based science and/or the public good.
That is not the reality of the situation. That is what you think the reality is. Big difference. You've failed to rigorously prove your claim. You claim it's all about this ominous "the man" and lobbyists, yet you haven't shown anything substantial in support of this idea. Meanwhile, there have been pages and pages of readily verifiable scientific research highlighting that, in fact, evidence-based science DOES show that it's unhealthy. Your meager dabbling in a few statistics doesn't really rebut all the research papers that have been posted.
I would just drop it; don't bother replying to this. Instead, if you want to support raw milk, focus on the more legitimate arguments in favor of it. Don't focus on nonsense.
|
On August 07 2011 15:06 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 15:05 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 15:02 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:58 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:51 dAPhREAk wrote:On August 07 2011 14:49 caradoc wrote:On August 07 2011 14:43 dAPhREAk wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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. the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed). the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules. yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry. Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized). false dichotomy. The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this. In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO). why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done. so whats the point? I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread) hell yeah; we are in agreement. now lets go watch the colbert report. because that guy is (r)awesome.
haha, not on here, but he is funny.
this thread is rapidly turning into a pile of crap anyways.
|
On August 07 2011 15:03 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 14:53 semantics wrote: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 ( source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk ( source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year) 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. *1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009 1% of Americans consume raw milk so it's more like 2-3 million Also http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5822a1.htmAlthough the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death. For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it. if you read the source, its 3% consume raw milk. alright then though, so you add 137 to the original 42, assuming that none are cross reported, and you still have 179 out of 9 million, which is still ridiculously low compared to illness from other sources.
It doesn't say that that 3% of Americans consume raw milk...
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases),
71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). It says only 3% of outbreak related cases are from dairy, and 71% of those out breaks is from raw unpasteurized milk
It should also be noted that sense is only in out breaks not just illnesses my source makes a distinction between the two.
Unless you mean your source, in which case you cannot cross compare outbreak numbers in one study to the next they do not get from the same sources, i'm discounting your source because it's not from a .edu .org .gov nor do i have the publication at hand
Also again 1%
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html
Although precise data are not available, it is thought that less than 1% of milk sold to consumers in the United States has not been pasteurized.
It is talking specifically about raw unpasteurized milk, which is what is the issue at hand
From 1998 through 2008, 86 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,676 illnesses, 191 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.
It doesn't fit what you care about though which would be out of all food borne sickness, which is not what i care about as that's not exactly fair, i would compare it to other dairy products over the same period.
|
On August 07 2011 15:10 caradoc wrote:
this thread is rapidly turning into a pile of crap anyways.
On the contrary, this thread began as crap, but is now resolved. In the process, many people have learned a lot about raw milk (including myself) and its associated risks.
|
Im glad to see the OP is conceding the point that the other side is presenting. Its always good to have rational and calm discussions between two sides that disagree and people acknowledging the good points to the other sides argument. People have to remember that no one is right about everything. Everyone holds many viewpoints that are misconceptions or are just plain wrong. Plus a lot of issues have no right and wrong answers but yet people pain these certain issues that way. I know myself that I personally hold views that are wrong (I just don't know their wrong). The important thing is to know when your wrong and being able to set aside your ego to admit when your wrong. This happens very very rarely on the internet though :\
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
