|
On August 06 2011 19:34 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 19:19 Vul wrote:Unless I'm missing something entirely I don't see how you can really say that given this abstract, it sounds kind of pessimistic imo. I actually would have assumed that organic foods are healthier but this study seems to say that they aren't unless they are grown the right way.
Please don't troll, thanks. I took the time to find this and bold the important part. You need to read and consider everything that's being said. Variations in nutrient content due to weather and something like that or the difficulty in associating nutrient content to specific health effects is not important. What matters is that animals being fed organic food were in fact healthier according to several criteria. Also that humans eating organic food have reduced allergies. One would assume this to be due to increased nutrient content or reduced content of unhealthy stuff (" A number of comparative studies showed lower nitrate contents and less pesticide residues, but usually higher levels of vitamin C and phenolic compounds in organic plant products, as well as higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid in milk from organically raised animals.") If you didn't intend to troll, then I'll say sorry, but I just greatly dislike "discussions" in which people pick apart a text or post meant to be taken as a whole as it suits their argument.
That abstract clearly says that the health effects are ambiguous and hence they want better indicators for future studies. I'm not sure why you think I'm trolling by pointing that out.
|
On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi".
I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
|
|
|
On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
I love this guy, best posts in this thread imo haha
|
On August 08 2011 03:05 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +I find it ironic you say not raw meat when the dangers of raw meat are very similar to those of unpasteurized milk. I have an oven and a stove in my house. I do not have the equipment required to pasteurise milk. You're seriously making this statement?
Well you guys have it pretty bad then, my pasteurization machine sits right next to the coffee maker at MY house...
Pic related:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Go31.png) It's my coffee maker and pasteurization machine
|
On August 08 2011 03:05 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11. Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi". I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
good thing it's legal here and good thing we have an organization to regulate suppliers of raw milk so they adhere to health and safety standards. nah jk we hate organic food.
|
<3 how people keep saying "raw milk is safe" when what they mean is "raw pasteurized milk is safe."
Also, genetically modified foods aren't dangerous and if you are posting here saying so you're pretty much a liar. We've been eating them in large quantities for 15 years in the US with no ill effects, get over it and stop acting like you're concerned about health, you don't like corporations and capitalism and that's why you're repeatedly insisting things that aren't true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversies
To date, not a single instance of harm to human health has been documented with GM crops.
The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[7] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[8] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[1] A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[9] A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[10] However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[11] A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".[12][13] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[14][15][16] In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003).[17] However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years.[18][19] Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases.
I bet you guess the response of anti-GM zealots: "Corporations aren't letting people do real research!" Which is the last refuge of the demagogue when he has nowhere else to go: declare a conspiracy (all bets are now off) and double down on his nonsensical position. In fact:
They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.
Yup!
Don't you just love it when people try to substitute politics for science in scientific controversies?
Read the Wikipedia link and you will see just how fanatical and ridiculous anti-GM demagogues are; they will literally throw anything and everything against the wall just to see if it will stick.
Oh hey look what a big surprise, that study people keep mentioning about how GM foods stunted rat growth?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair
Yeah, it was probably bullshit (unless you were one of Pusztai's friends or The Lancet, the most inaccurate medical journal of the last 25 years, then it was alright. Funny how that works). I bet you never read about the controversy over it on any of the hundreds of well-funded anti-GM websites, right?
|
On August 08 2011 03:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 02:50 caradoc wrote:On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11. He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings). He didn't do a great job though. Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now.
haha, speaking of taking things out of context.
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 08 2011 03:05 Sated wrote:Show nested quote +I find it ironic you say not raw meat when the dangers of raw meat are very similar to those of unpasteurized milk. I have an oven and a stove in my house. I do not have the equipment required to pasteurise milk. You're seriously making this statement?
I'm pretty sure you're taking this out of context. He was comparing raw milk to that of other 'fresh' food products and specially mentioned raw meat not being as safe as the others. I thought it was kind of funny that he acknowledged the potential hazards of raw meat but not unpasteurized milk.
|
On August 08 2011 04:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:<3 how people keep saying "raw milk is safe" when what they mean is "raw pasteurized milk is safe." Also, genetically modified foods aren't dangerous and if you are posting here saying so you're pretty much a liar. We've been eating them in large quantities for 15 years in the US with no ill effects, get over it and stop acting like you're concerned about health, you don't like corporations and capitalism and that's why you're repeatedly insisting things that aren't true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_food_controversiesShow nested quote +To date, not a single instance of harm to human health has been documented with GM crops. Show nested quote +The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[7] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[8] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[1] A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[9] A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[10] However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[11] A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".[12][13] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[14][15][16] In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003).[17] However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years.[18][19] Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases. I bet you guess the response of anti-GM zealots: "Corporations aren't letting people do real research!" Which is the last refuge of the demagogue when he has nowhere else to go: declare a conspiracy (all bets are now off) and double down on his nonsensical position. In fact: Show nested quote +They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials. Yup! Don't you just love it when people try to substitute politics for science in scientific controversies? Read the Wikipedia link and you will see just how fanatical and ridiculous anti-GM demagogues are; they will literally throw anything and everything against the wall just to see if it will stick. Oh hey look what a big surprise, that study people keep mentioning about how GM foods stunted rat growth? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affairYeah, it was probably bullshit (unless you were one of Pusztai's friends or The Lancet, the most inaccurate medical journal of the last 25 years, then it was alright. Funny how that works). I bet you never read about the controversy over it on any of the hundreds of well-funded anti-GM websites, right?
if you'd like to debate this in a separate thread, feel free to open one up.
|
if you'd like to debate this in a separate thread, feel free to open one up.
If other people are going to mention GM foods and spread misinformation I am going to reply to it.
If you'd like to lecture people on what you think is properly relevant posting, make your own forum where you can be King and lecture to yourself all day long if you want. Otherwise please shut up, who is this caradoc fellow to be talking to anyone like that, pretty rude of him 
|
On August 08 2011 03:05 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11. Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi". I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
If you get sick you WILL have someone pay for the cost of the treatment (insurance company/society depending on where you are from) AND you'll take up a spot in the hospital - a spot which someone else could be in dire need of. It's nice of you not to blame anyone though...
The quality of the "I've been drinking raw milk my entire life and haven't had any problems" argument is compareable to chain-smokers going "I've been smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years and I haven't got cancer". It is really damn crappy... You could at least put in some effort and cite how the improved hygiene has led to some countries lifting the ban on unpastaurised cheese as an argument for safety. Anecdoctal evidence is COMPLETELY worthless.
|
On August 08 2011 04:35 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 03:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:On August 08 2011 02:50 caradoc wrote:On August 08 2011 02:40 mahnini wrote:On August 07 2011 19:11 BrTarolg wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I'm going to post one more time in this thread
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive
As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry.
As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink.
In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take? BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11. He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings). He didn't do a great job though. Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now. haha, speaking of taking things out of context.
haha, speaking of dodging the matter at hand.
|
It would seem to me that there are three viewpoints in this thread. One is that raw milk is totally safe, one is that raw milk is safe if proper precautions are taken, and one that says raw milk is never safe. It would seem to me that since raw milk is legal if it is regulated, the second position is the correct one.
That being said, I do have a couple of curiosities at this point. Despite not having a proper license, is there any evidence to suggest that Rawesome foods did not take proper precautions with their food? I understand that selling raw milk without license is illegal, but I'm wondering if there is evidence to suggest that they were selling dangerous milk. It would certainly change things if for example they were not testing their milk or cows for disease, as is required by regulation.
|
From the description of their business in the news articles I would guess that they probably would sell you straight up raw milk if you wanted it and would sell you pasteurized raw milk if you wanted it. And that they were not running some slipshod operation. They seem like responsible dirty hippies
|
The problem I see with this thread is people don't seem to be reading it and then repeat what has been said before...
TL:DR: Read the entire thread, form your newly revised and more educated opinion, stop saying an inherently dangerous product is safe just because you use it, its not a great basis for truth, go take some microbiology classes, some pathology classes, and revert back to the thread and agree with the people that know raw milk is dangerous and go on with you merry life. Thank you.
|
On August 08 2011 10:38 NET wrote:
The problem I see with this thread is people don't seem to be reading it and then repeat what has been said before...
TL:DR: Read the entire thread, form your newly revised and more educated opinion, stop saying an inherently dangerous product is safe just because you use it, its not a great basis for truth, go take some microbiology classes, some pathology classes, and revert back to the thread and agree with the people that know raw milk is dangerous and go on with you merry life. Thank you.
for someone telling people to read the thread, you should definitely read the thread. You've consistently ignored numerous counterexamples to your own singleminded stance.
A better conclusion would be that the jury is out over if raw milk is dangerous or not, whether the FDA is compromised or not, and whether the raid was justified or not, and there is no consensus because multiple perspectives have evidence for them. That's me being generous though, since my personal stance is that the argument that its dangerous is not solidly grounded. Nevertheless a full read of the thread would result in an understanding that multiple perspectives, each with their own sets of evidence, exist.
Of course you might make the argument that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid or ill-informed, and that evidence that isn't your own is problematic for reason X, Y, Z. That's fair, and that's why the thread is 20 pages+ long. You're allowed to do that, but if you want to summarize the thread, you should get out of your own head.
|
Being an environmental health specialist helps to know some of this information... a little better. But hey its just science, no big deal.
|
The law is that unprocessed milk is illegal. Its the police's job to enforce the law. Whats the problem here? If you have a problem with the law, you have to fight to have the law changed, not the way that it is enforced.
|
The government controls what drugs you are and are not allowed to consume.
The government controls what you are and are not allowed to say.
The government writes the law books.
This is not surprising or old news.. and all those people who are saying things like "Lol its their fault because they didn't check the law bla bla bla "are the reason that such a system can continue to remain in place.
People like to be brainwashed, it's easier and they don't have to make decisions. That is why there are people who support this kind of act.
Like this idiot who posted above me. "If it's a law it needz to be enforced hurrrrrrrr"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
