|
On August 08 2011 10:58 insomdapowahouz wrote:
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" 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.
Has nothing to do with being brainwashed, on the contrary education will help you understand it more clearly. There are dangers with the products they were selling, ergo, their illegal facility was shut down. Simple as that.
|
On August 08 2011 10:45 caradoc wrote:
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.
Statistics have shown that raw milk has caused the vast majority of milk related disease outbreaks. Studies show that raw milk has a much higher likelihood of breeding dangerous bacteria. but you know, the jury's still out on it.
cause the FDA is secretly plotting with the illuminati to stage another moon landing with elvis as the astronaut.
|
On August 08 2011 11:03 Kaneh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 10:45 caradoc wrote:
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. Statistics have shown that raw milk has caused the vast majority of milk related disease outbreaks. Studies show that raw milk has a much higher likelihood of breeding dangerous bacteria. but you know, the jury's still out on it. cause the FDA is secretly plotting with the illuminati to stage another moon landing with elvis as the astronaut.
explain how millions of people consume raw milk in Europe daily without significant risk.
This has been ignored again and again in this thread
you can get raw milk in German grocery stores in any major city.
Hell, France has raw milk vending machines.
|
On August 08 2011 11:21 caradoc wrote:
explain how millions of people consume raw milk in Europe daily without significant risk.
This has been ignored again and again in this thread
Hell, France has raw milk vending machines.
Statistics have shown that raw milk has caused the vast majority of milk related disease outbreaks.
Talking about history that probably has nothing to do with recent history.
Studies show that raw milk has a much higher likelihood of breeding dangerous bacteria. but you know, the jury's still out on it.
Talking about probability.
It really has nothing to do with Europe... It's just being presented as a risk factor.
Are you seriously still in this thread?
|
On August 08 2011 11:26 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 11:21 caradoc wrote:
explain how millions of people consume raw milk in Europe daily without significant risk.
This has been ignored again and again in this thread
Hell, France has raw milk vending machines. Show nested quote +
Statistics have shown that raw milk has caused the vast majority of milk related disease outbreaks.
Talking about history that probably has nothing to do with recent history. Show nested quote +
Studies show that raw milk has a much higher likelihood of breeding dangerous bacteria. but you know, the jury's still out on it.
Talking about probability. It really has nothing to do with Europe... It's just being presented as a risk factor. Are you seriously still in this thread?
The fact that its consumed daily by millions in Europe without significant risk completely negates claims that its TOXIC and DANGEROUS, which gets rehashed again and again.
statistical studies are done under conditions different from a European setting. *shrugs* its good discussion because it unearths factors that would go ignored otherwise. I don't see how its unsuitable for conversation.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 08 2011 11:03 Kaneh wrote:
cause the FDA is secretly plotting with the illuminati to stage another moon landing with elvis as the astronaut.
How much of a stretch is it to think that the FDA is in the pocket of big milk producers or the milk pasteurization plants. Why that's as improbable as faking a moon landing! OF COURSE it wouldn't be true.
FDA does this all the time. It overstates the health risks of something like raw milk and asserts its regulatory muscle to tilt the competitive balance towards its big business clients. The vast majority of Rawesome's customers understand raw milk risks and don't want any part of FDA's "health" concerns.
|
The fact that its consumed daily by millions in Europe without significant risk completely negates claims that its TOXIC and DANGEROUS, which gets rehashed again and again.
statistical studies are done under conditions different from a European setting. *shrugs* its good discussion because it unearths factors that would go ignored otherwise. I don't see how its unsuitable for conversation.
And in Europe where its consumed by as you say millions, its subject to regulations and regular testing to make sure it is safe for consumtion, exacly the same as the US does (from what I can gather from this thread) This company decided it didnt need to follow regulations, so it was shut down, the same as any dairy in Europe would be if it failed to follow the regulations.
|
This whole thread is hinging on Europe vs USA
In Europe I'm certain the raw milk needs to pass regulations and be tested. In this case no regulation was done and therefore the place was shut down as a precaution to the safety of the people consuming such products.
Let's just state that there is NOTHING WRONG WITH DRINKING RAW MILK. No need to argue the safety or legally of it. They were purely shut down for not passing standards of any sort.
omfg close thread please
|
On August 08 2011 11:45 Grunor wrote:Show nested quote +The fact that its consumed daily by millions in Europe without significant risk completely negates claims that its TOXIC and DANGEROUS, which gets rehashed again and again.
statistical studies are done under conditions different from a European setting. *shrugs* its good discussion because it unearths factors that would go ignored otherwise. I don't see how its unsuitable for conversation.
And in Europe where its consumed by as you say millions, its subject to regulations and regular testing to make sure it is safe for consumtion, exacly the same as the US does (from what I can gather from this thread) This company decided it didnt need to follow regulations, so it was shut down, the same as any dairy in Europe would be if it failed to follow the regulations.
well we actually don't specifically know what regulation(s) the company was allegedly violating, since none of that has been made public. But yes, that is certainly one possibility.
Nobody is disagreeing with that at all, or at least I'm not. My motivation for posting is to counter claims that exaggerate the health risks etc, and to point out assumptions or oversimplifications (because there are a lot of them here)
|
well we actually don't specifically know what regulation(s) the company was allegedly violating, since none of that has been made public. But yes, that is certainly one possibility.
Nobody is disagreeing with that at all, or at least I'm not. My motivation for posting is to counter claims that exaggerate the health risks etc, and to point out assumptions or oversimplifications (because there are a lot of them here)
What da fudge you talking about, you've been arguing for the sake of arguing for about three pages naow
Raw milk is not as safe as pasteurized raw milk and if you want to say pasteurized raw milk is safer than hormone-free processed milk or hormone-containing processed milk fine whatever but there's no indication that it's true, any placing of blame for increased physical unhealthiness is pretty much conjecture except in that processed milk will get put on fat faster (and it will be a more unhealthy brand of fat) if someone drinks too much and doesn't exercise.
But even then they'd have to drink like 2 gallons of 100% milk a day sitting on the couch 24/7 to get fat and unhealthy just from drinking evil corporate milk.
So there can you stop now?
|
On August 08 2011 12:23 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +well we actually don't specifically know what regulation(s) the company was allegedly violating, since none of that has been made public. But yes, that is certainly one possibility.
Nobody is disagreeing with that at all, or at least I'm not. My motivation for posting is to counter claims that exaggerate the health risks etc, and to point out assumptions or oversimplifications (because there are a lot of them here) What da fudge you talking about, you've been arguing for the sake of arguing for about three pages naow Raw milk is not as safe as pasteurized raw milk and if you want to say pasteurized raw milk is safer than hormone-free processed milk or hormone-containing processed milk fine whatever but there's no indication that it's true, any placing of blame for increased physical unhealthiness is pretty much conjecture except in that processed milk will get put on fat faster (and it will be a more unhealthy brand of fat) if someone drinks too much and doesn't exercise. But even then they'd have to drink like 2 gallons of 100% milk a day sitting on the couch 24/7 to get fat and unhealthy just from drinking evil corporate milk. So there can you stop now?
I don't think I've mentioned hormones once. Are you confusing me with someone else?
and corporations aren't evil man. Potentially responsible for things construable as evil at times, certainly, and definitely not the most optimal vehicle for structuring society, but the way you formulate it is a pretty broad blanket statement
|
Wait you can buy weed, but you can't drink raw milk? California has their shit together.
(im kidding.)
|
On August 08 2011 12:34 Contagious wrote:
Wait you can buy weed, but you can't drink raw milk? California has their shit together.
(im kidding.)
hahahaha. Kind of apt.
|
It makes complete sense to me. Having them check to make sure there is nothing harmful in the milk doesn't seem like a terrible thing. I can assume it's annoying/more costly to sell, but that's the price to pay for safety.
|
caradoc has been drawing a lot of criticism. He has good emotional reason for returning again and again: Canada's laws are much more stringent than in the U.S. (including California, where raw milk is still legal...still legal....yep, still legal), and it seems like authoritarian overkill. But that doesn't mean most of his arguments hold any water. He wrongly claims, for instance:
Raw milk is "consumed daily by millions in Europe without significant health risks," which, if true "completely negates claims that [raw milk is] TOXIC and DANGEROUS." But he is wrong on the first point, and of course on the second.
Most European countries have laws similar to California's or in a similar spirit. They issue strong warnings about the dangers of raw milk, require special licenses; producers must pass rigorous inspections or meet special criteria that limit dangers to consumers (e.g., farms selling directly to consumers to keep the age of the milk as low as possible -- as Maenander wrote, "drinking [fresh] raw milk on a farm is one thing, selling it in large quantities is another"). The easiest place to get raw milk is not Europe, but India or Africa, which we all know have screamingly perfect health records beyond anyone's wildest utopian dreams.
Claims that raw milk is toxic and dangerous have a basis in empirical evidence, acknowledged throughout the western world, and that includes Europe. It turns out (brace for it) that in America, the CDC and FDA serve a public good. But others on the forum, perhaps out of innate distrust for government, agree with caradoc's sentiment. Veros writes:
And (in case it hasn't been mentioned in this thread yet), the data referenced by the CDC and FDA has not been verified. No peer-reviewed, independent studies indicate that responsibly produced raw milk is a significant danger to public health This is wrong. See, for instance, "C. jejuni Enteritis Associated with Consumption of Raw Milk," Journal of Environmental Health 65/9 (2003). Not every outbreak of a food-borne illness gets its own peer-reviewed paper. This is a constant and serious threat. C. jejuni outbreaks can be prevented with pasteurization. As far as the CDC data referenced by the FDA goes, it seems to me that an agency that collects statistics from hospitals has more verification than not, unless (as you seem to be implying) they just make it all up to control the mindless masses, perhaps to serve their overlord Zeno of Elea on the former planet of Pluto.
At the same time, BrTarolg's worry that the dangers of salmonella and other diseases in raw milk are made much worse by dairy farming practices (which breed antibiotic-resistant strains) seems to be justified, or at least opens a middle ground in the debate.
But before that, the raw milk advocates here have to admit that the potential dangers of raw milk is fact, not opinion. Most of these laws were put in place to protect the public, starting with the milk at the farm (e.g., grading systems, filtering, licensing), and moving to the store (labeling, refrigeration, shelf life controls). The rest of us can maybe acknowledge that outright banning raw milk isn't necessary when there are reasonably safe alternative solutions. I'd certainly like to live in a world where local, safe raw milk was available. Furthermore, none of us know the whole story about Rawesome, and we're confined to pure speculation about the raids -- speculation that potentially reveals more about us than about what happened or why.
(For example: I think that anyone who believes in magic milk vibrations probably has not learned how to navigate the bureaucratic labyrinths set up to protect the public. Either that, or Rawesome deliberately set up a twisted, difficult legal situation to bring attention to their weird libertarian cause.)
|
I would say the UK is not nearly as bad so i am usually perfectly happy with many brands of milk that i can just buy off the shelf in supermarkets (waitrose milk is great). There is no need to purchase speciality milk here
But seriously - visit america and drink a pint of whatever sh*t they produce there and itll make you freaking sick. Its totally vile and tastes absolutely horrific
And even some farmers that claim to do organic/freerange don't actually adhere to the practise properly, and try and dodge and cut corners as much as possible to get around the system so they can get the organic label on their food
Its not surprising theres a demand for well sourced food there, raw or otherwise
You wouldn't have to buy raw milk if your normal milk was ok to drink >_>
|
On August 07 2011 14:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +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."
Because society is way overreacting. We MORE than survived with those foods, we THRIVED. Look where society is now! There's a slightly less amount of food poisoning in "processed" and "safer" food than there is in raw food. Now the government's gone shitless and raided rawesome for offering people the trade-off of "no GMOs nor processed, but slightly less safe.
|
On August 08 2011 11:28 caradoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 11:26 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 08 2011 11:21 caradoc wrote:
explain how millions of people consume raw milk in Europe daily without significant risk.
This has been ignored again and again in this thread
Hell, France has raw milk vending machines.
Statistics have shown that raw milk has caused the vast majority of milk related disease outbreaks.
Talking about history that probably has nothing to do with recent history.
Studies show that raw milk has a much higher likelihood of breeding dangerous bacteria. but you know, the jury's still out on it.
Talking about probability. It really has nothing to do with Europe... It's just being presented as a risk factor. Are you seriously still in this thread? The fact that its consumed daily by millions in Europe without significant risk completely negates claims that its TOXIC and DANGEROUS, which gets rehashed again and again. statistical studies are done under conditions different from a European setting. *shrugs* its good discussion because it unearths factors that would go ignored otherwise. I don't see how its unsuitable for conversation.
Please change your argument to "millions of people in Europe and hundreds in Germany".
Raw milk here has to come from especially hygienic cow. Their udders are regularily tested for bacteria, the special milking machines need to be sterilized and due to the nature of cow digestion, cows need to be gras fed with a low cow population density or be high on antibiotics. Even then, raw milk can not be consumed later than 96h after the milking and even then it is recommended to cook the milk before consumption. Due to this, only people living closely to these special cow farms have access to raw milk and even then, they are paying out of their nose to get it, which means only a few people get to consume raw milk, not millions.
btw, the regulations for raw milk are pretty similar for the US and Germany.
ps: it probably isnt "millions" in the rest of europe either, but I don't know about their regulations and you are free to make up your statistics for them.
|
People in general are lazy (possibly stupid) and won't research the food they're eating. It only takes one person going around saying how 'healthy' it is to maintain some sort of diet, backing it up with historical anecdotes and flimsy science, and then people start trying it out.
So yes, it is in the government's place to regulate the food we sell.
However; Raiding a food co-op ad then destroying the product is pretty overboard and sounds like a huge waste of resources. It should be enough to just require packaging of the milk with warnings about communicable diseases or regular testing of the product.
|
On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote:
what right do they have to regulate what I choose to drink. It's not even a drug!
Not much, but they have every right to regulate what people sell / make available to large numbers of other people. They didn't arrest you, they arrested the guy selling the goods that didn't measure up to health standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
