|
On August 08 2011 17:37 iba001 wrote:
no, the selling of raw milk in itself was what got them arrested, not the selling of unsafe raw milk. You cannot legally sell raw milk in USA, and I'm pretty sure Australia as well.
You're making stuff up. Selling raw milk is legal in 28 US states, including California.
They weren't arrested because they were selling raw milk. They were arrested because they were either selling raw milk that did not meet health standards, or because they were selling raw mlik without the appropriate warning labels.
On August 08 2011 21:35 bOne7 wrote:
Oh and by the way when I was a child i lived for about 12 years in a more rural area , every day I drank raw milk ... And hey look , I'm still here , I go to the physician and I'm still in a very good shape .... Or not .. my doctor is lying to me ... HOLY FUCK PEOPLE
You clearly have no comprehension of risk measurement, probability, or empirical science.
If I can tell you about one person who smoked for a few years and is still healthy, does that mean smoking does not cause cancer? 
|
On August 08 2011 21:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 17:37 iba001 wrote:
no, the selling of raw milk in itself was what got them arrested, not the selling of unsafe raw milk. You cannot legally sell raw milk in USA, and I'm pretty sure Australia as well.
You're making stuff up. Selling raw milk is legal in 28 US states, including California. They weren't arrested because they were selling raw milk. They were arrested because they were either selling raw milk that did not meet health standards, or because they were selling raw mlik without the appropriate warning labels. Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 21:35 bOne7 wrote:
Oh and by the way when I was a child i lived for about 12 years in a more rural area , every day I drank raw milk ... And hey look , I'm still here , I go to the physician and I'm still in a very good shape .... Or not .. my doctor is lying to me ... HOLY FUCK PEOPLE You clearly have no comprehension of risk measurement, probability, or empirical science. If I can tell you about one person who smoked for a few years and is still healthy, does that mean smoking does not cause cancer?
Actually, they weren't arrested for either of those reasons either. They were arrested for not having a license. This does not mean the milk didn't meet health standards, or that they were selling without appropriate warning labels. It just means they didn't have a license for whatever the reasons may be.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On August 08 2011 21:51 sunprince wrote:You clearly have no comprehension of risk measurement, probability, or empirical science. If I can tell you about one person who smoked for a few years and is still healthy, does that mean smoking does not cause cancer?
Ha!
Does that justify storming into the building guns drawn and treating everybody, owner, customers, and workers as potential lethal targets?
Does than mean forcing people to stop driving cars? Does it mean forcing people to stop consuming alcohol?
If a comprehension of risk measurement, probability, and empirical science is to be had, the risks of raw foods are overstate. The measure of taking a SWAT team against the store is excessive.
Maybe you can try banging that into your head.
|
I think most Americans would agree with me that police use overwhelming force to prevent harm. It isn't to intimidate the population. And this discussion is very confused. Too many people speaking at cross purposes.
It's very difficult to address all the questions raised but the core issues are simple.
Raw milk is not safe unless heavily regulated. Rawesome violated those regulations for years.
No difference between Rawsome and an illegal distillery.
The government has the duty to shut down Rawsome.
|
On August 08 2011 19:14 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 18:45 Brotkrumen wrote:
At last, the data on health benefits for organic food is mixed. Some organic foods do better, some worse, some nothing.
Another post further up posted the abstract of a meta-study of organic foods. Funnily enough, the abstract in total said "no measurable effect of organic foods shown except in in-vitro studies where positive effects were present". The poster, being an organic enthusiast proceeded to ignore the whole abstract except "positive effects were present" I think you're the one ignoring the reduced occurrence of allergies in people eating organic foods. Also, positive effect on animal weight, growth, fertility and immune system with organic feeds. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.2011.01.004These are readily explained by the reduced nitrate and pesticide content as well as the higher nutrient content that were also measured in organic foods. So we have a measured positive effect and a plausible explanation for it. I also dislike how you're belittling in-vitro studies as if they don't matter. In-vitro isn't the same as the real thing, but you can't just dismiss them outright without coming over as biased. They still have significance.
Ah good, you came out of the wood works... My point is not to dismiss in-vitro studies, but that you are reading stuff into the study that isn't there. BTW, I too am convinced that there will be evidence forthcoming that certain kinds organic food are healthier than certain kinds of industrial foods, but there is no evidence there yet.
Let's analyse the abstract:
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. However, the variation in outcomes of comparative studies is very high, depending on plant fertilization, ripening stage and plant age at harvest, and weather conditions. Moreover, there appeared no simple relationship between nutritional value and health effects. It is difficult therefore to draw conclusions from analytical data about the health effects of organic foods.
Meaning: Less pesticides were found, higher nutritional value was found. BUT, no simple relationship between this and health effects was shown.
Some in vitro studies comparing health-related properties of organic vs conventional foods showed higher antioxidative and antimutagenic activity as well as better inhibition of cancer cell proliferation of organically produced food. If ‘health effects’ are defined as effects on defined diseases in humans, evidence for such effects is presently lacking.
In vitro studies has shown anti-cancer effects properties. The effect on defined diseases is inconclusive. It might help to prevent, but there is no evidence for that yet.
Animal studies carried out so far have demonstrated positive effects of an organic diet on weight, growth, fertility indices and immune system. Recent human epidemiological studies associated consumption of organic foods with lower risks of allergies, whereas findings of human intervention studies were still ambiguous. The hypothesis might be that organic food increases the capacity of living organisms towards resilience. To confirm this, effect studies on specific markers for health are necessary.
Animal studies have shown positive effects on weight etc.
NEXT TOPIC: epidemiological studies have shown lower risk of allergies if organics are consumed.
intervention studies are inconclusive.
Meaning: people who eat organic have fewer allergies on average. If you give organic food to a person with allergies, nothing happens! There might be another reason for the statistical effect.
On August 08 2011 19:25 Traeon wrote:According to the regulations in the European Union all raw milk products are "legal" and considered "safe for human consumption", and can be sold without any price, variety or quantity restrictions. However, the European countries are free to add certain requirements, usually special sanitary regulations and frequent quality tests (at least once per month) are mandatory. Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk
This just means that there is no European law concerning raw milk. That doesn't mean that it is unrestricted in the countries.
Very strict laws are attached to selling raw milk in Germany! Stop grasping for straws.
Europe will probably ban raw milk soon , didn't they just ban herbal medicines recently?
Madness.[/QUOTE]
Inaccurate. Real information is just a google away:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/may/01/new-eu-rules-on-herbal-remedies
|
On August 06 2011 14:41 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 14:40 Triscuit wrote:On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote:
It's my opinion here that this raid was absurd, and so is California law. How dare the government try and tell us what is healthy, when they created the joke that is known as the food pyramid. And whether or not you think raw milk is unsafe, what right do they have to regulate what I choose to drink. It's not even a drug!
So is it your right to sell potentially harmful milk products to someone, who may or may not know the risk of consuming raw milk? What if said person feeds milk to her children, who have less established immune systems? Pasteurization is done for a reason. Is it a corporations right to sell cigarettes and alcohol, who may or may not know the risk of consuming cigarettes and alcohol? And by the way, I'm not saying what this guy did wasn't against the law. Just that I don't agree with the law.
Is it a corporations right to sell unpasteurized milk to people, who may or may not know the risk of consuming unpasteurized milk?
Also its a good thing no one gives a shit that you dont agree with the law.
|
On August 08 2011 22:54 Brotkrumen wrote:
Ah good, you came out of the wood works... My point is not to dismiss in-vitro studies, but that you are reading stuff into the study that isn't there. BTW, I too am convinced that there will be evidence forthcoming that certain kinds organic food are healthier than certain kinds of industrial foods, but there is no evidence there yet.
Hi
We both think the same then. As for "reading stuff into the study that isn't there", I think you're bit too quick to jump on me.
I originally commented the study with "People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right." Nowhere did I say the study in question was hard evidence or proof.
|
On August 08 2011 22:58 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 14:41 shinosai wrote:On August 06 2011 14:40 Triscuit wrote:On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote:
It's my opinion here that this raid was absurd, and so is California law. How dare the government try and tell us what is healthy, when they created the joke that is known as the food pyramid. And whether or not you think raw milk is unsafe, what right do they have to regulate what I choose to drink. It's not even a drug!
So is it your right to sell potentially harmful milk products to someone, who may or may not know the risk of consuming raw milk? What if said person feeds milk to her children, who have less established immune systems? Pasteurization is done for a reason. Is it a corporations right to sell cigarettes and alcohol, who may or may not know the risk of consuming cigarettes and alcohol? And by the way, I'm not saying what this guy did wasn't against the law. Just that I don't agree with the law. Is it a corporations right to sell unpasteurized milk to people, who may or may not know the risk of consuming unpasteurized milk? Also its a good thing no one gives a shit that you dont agree with the law.
Ah, another case of "I didn't read the thread but I thought I'd just post anyways." If you haven't read the thread, then you coming in here and starting a flame war on issues that have already been covered and discussed is just plain trolling.
|
sunprince I guess soon we'll have no raw milk drinking signs in subways ...Yeah I know , I'm totally not doing what you're doing with that last sentence .And ye this is BS talk ...
The focus on this topic should be why the hell SWAT team came here ? Any1 who is stupid enough to believe this is not to intimidate .... ok ... give me 1 reason why they'd come with a SWAT team other then intimidation . Perhaps I'm overlooking the danger of raw milk dealers , I heard they team up with the bloods and creeps for illegal trafficking .
|
On August 08 2011 23:51 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 22:54 Brotkrumen wrote:
Ah good, you came out of the wood works... My point is not to dismiss in-vitro studies, but that you are reading stuff into the study that isn't there. BTW, I too am convinced that there will be evidence forthcoming that certain kinds organic food are healthier than certain kinds of industrial foods, but there is no evidence there yet. Hi We both think the same then. As for "reading stuff into the study that isn't there", I think you're bit too quick to jump on me. I originally commented the study with "People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right." Nowhere did I say the study in question was hard evidence or proof.
sorry my friend, but you said:
+ Show Spoiler +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.
You discounted the variation due outside effects and difficulties in finding causation where there is correlation and just assumed causation because of a possibly unrelated fact (must be healthier because of higher nutrient content)
Then you went on to say that "animals being fed organic were healther" as if that was the only possible reason for their health. Organic here would mean "no anti biotics". For animals not to die without those, you must give them plenty of living space and a clean one at that. These two alone might provide ample explanation for their increased health.
Secondly, you stated that "humans eating organic food have reduced allergies", which is a half-truth. The abstract clearly states, that humans having less allergies correlates with eating organic, but giving people organic food who have allergies does not reduce the allergies. Organic food therefore does not have to be the cause.
|
Brotkrumen, I'm going to respond to the relevant parts of the abstract itself
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. However, the variation in outcomes of comparative studies is very high, depending on plant fertilization, ripening stage and plant age at harvest, and weather conditions
That weather, ripening and so forth affect fruit and vegetable nutritional value is evident and is true for both organic and conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables. This point needs no discussion (unless someone wants to argue at all costs like you seem intent on doing).
Moreover, there appeared no simple relationship between nutritional value and health effects.
This point is vague. One would have to look into the full paper to understand what the author is saying here. Since the author is not straight up saying "no health effects observed" it probably means effects were observed but in a way that is too complex to be explained in an abstract.
However as long as positive effects occur, the mechanism behind them doesn't need to be clear, explained or evident for the positive results to be valid. Demanding this would be dogmatic.
Animal studies carried out so far have demonstrated positive effects of an organic diet on weight, growth, fertility indices and immune system
This is what the abstract says. Positive effects demonstrated.
Recent human epidemiological studies associated consumption of organic foods with lower risks of allergies, whereas findings of human intervention studies were still ambiguous
I'll agree with your criticism here. I should have been more clear when talking about this part.
All this aside, since you seem to have missed the context in which this discussion took place: I did not claim there was hard, irrefutable evidence. I merely said that "
People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right."
Also, it was brought up since I talked about Omega 3 content of organic ((grass fed animals to be exact) meat and milk which is higher. Omega 3 fatty acids are widely recognized as being very valuable for the prevention of a multitude of diseases. That was the context. The rest is what *you* are reading into the discussion.
|
I have cows, and I use their milk to cook when i'm in the farm I own. Mankind has consumed milk for the last 2 millenia. Stupid laws, and stupid hippies.
|
On August 08 2011 19:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Anyone who supports the authorities on this one please tell me , has man been consuming raw milk or pasteurised milk for longer?
The goal of this exercise is to keep the monopoly of big agriculture operating , they need to shut down the burgeoning smaller organic operators to achieve this.
We've been consuming raw milk for longer. That doesn't mean that its a better thing. We've wised up. In villages and towns we had piss and shit running in gutters until pretty recent times. Should we remove plumbing too and go back to the old ways?
You and your conspiracy theories. Theres a perfectly good reason why the police did what they did, no need to look for ulterior motives.
|
On August 09 2011 01:25 Traeon wrote:Brotkrumen, I'm going to respond to the relevant parts of the abstract itself Show nested quote +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. However, the variation in outcomes of comparative studies is very high, depending on plant fertilization, ripening stage and plant age at harvest, and weather conditions That weather, ripening and so forth affect fruit and vegetable nutritional value is evident and is true for both organic and conventionally farmed fruits and vegetables. This point needs no discussion (unless someone wants to argue at all costs like you seem intent on doing). Show nested quote +
Moreover, there appeared no simple relationship between nutritional value and health effects.
This point is vague. One would have to look into the full paper to understand what the author is saying here. Since the author is not straight up saying "no health effects observed" it probably means effects were observed but in a way that is too complex to be explained in an abstract. However as long as positive effects occur, the mechanism behind them doesn't need to be clear, explained or evident for the positive results to be valid. Demanding this would be dogmatic. Show nested quote +
Animal studies carried out so far have demonstrated positive effects of an organic diet on weight, growth, fertility indices and immune system
This is what the abstract says. Positive effects demonstrated. Show nested quote +Recent human epidemiological studies associated consumption of organic foods with lower risks of allergies, whereas findings of human intervention studies were still ambiguous I'll agree with your criticism here. I should have been more clear when talking about this part. All this aside, since you seem to have missed the context in which this discussion took place: I did not claim there was hard, irrefutable evidence. I merely said that " People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right." Also, it was brought up since I talked about Omega 3 content of organic ((grass fed animals to be exact) meat and milk which is higher. Omega 3 fatty acids are widely recognized as being very valuable for the prevention of a multitude of diseases. That was the context. The rest is what *you* are reading into the discussion.
I've read the posts and it seemed that you were hellbent on reading evidence into things that just aren't there. If I am mistaken, good. You will know yourself what you are doing and whether the posting of "Europe sells raw milk to millions" and "This abstract says that organic is healthier" actually represents the scientifically open mind you claim for yourself.
I won't even mention the factual error you claim as truth to support your point of view.
|
On August 09 2011 03:38 Brotkrumen wrote:
I've read the posts and it seemed that you were hellbent on reading evidence into things that just aren't there. If I am mistaken, good. You will know yourself what you are doing and whether the posting of "Europe sells raw milk to millions" and "This abstract says that organic is healthier" actually represents the scientifically open mind you claim for yourself.
Good, insight is a rare quality on internet boards
Where did I say "Europe sells raw milk to millions" by the way? That was some other guy (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=10728754)
Besides, I don't think he meant it literally, it's just a way of saying "many many people".
Other than that I kind of agree having been slightly emotional while writing some earlier posts, cause of this guy that said something along the lines of "many people think omega 3 is a scam" and linking to a google search query with the keywords "omega 3 scam" to support his argument. Just what the fuck.
|
Well, I'm pretty sure the whole organic food thing is just a big fake concoction, along with the green movement that's lead to cars like the Prius. Invent crisis, focus advertising on personal guilt, reveal solution, slap a big price tag on it. Others see how successful it is, try to follow suit and then after a while it becomes a crime to even consider the idea that the crisis never existed in the first place.
Though, that's not to say that global warming isn't happening. I just have huge, huge reservations about the idea that we're responsible for it.
|
So I have been monitoring this thread off and on in the past couple of days, and there seems to be a trend in the posts as follows:
People say raw milk is safe, therefore everyone should drink it. (This is a fallacy)
People say we have been drinking raw cows milk since the dawn of time, therefore it is safe.
Just because people used to drink dirty water in the past and seemed to live "ok" doesn't mean we shouldn't take the measures to drink clean potable water today. Its just not a good argument.
A person with scientific background states otherwise (raw milk is unsafe) and uses empirical evidence to support their data.
Once the person arguing for the side of safe raw milk realizes they are wrong, they then say was it necessary to use guns and swat team to enforce the law, and the argument changes from health and safety to law and government... Completed different issues. One health and one politically related.
I think there is a line drawn between people that know about science and how certain biological functions work and people that grew up on a farm or think something is safe just because they do it.
Edit: People think raw is organic (FALLACY:NOT TRUE)
Raw Milk: Is milk that has not been pasteurized or homogenized.
Organic Milk: Is defined by the USDA as milk from cows that have been exclusively fed organic feed, have not been treated with synthetic hormones, are not given certain medications to treat sickness, and are held in pens with adequate space.
Pasteurization: Is a process of heating a food, usually liquid, to a specific temperature for a definite length of time, and then cooling it immediately. This process slows microbial growth in food. The process of heating wine for preservation purposes has been known in China since 1117.
Maybe people will read this before posting that raw milk is healthier or before they say something like pasteurization is a chemical or something.
OP you can add these definitions to your OP if you want people to know the difference before re-posting something that has been said about 20 times this thread...
|
On August 09 2011 05:34 NET wrote:
So I have been monitoring this thread off and on in the past couple of days, and there seems to be a trend in the posts as follows:
People say raw milk is safe, therefore everyone should drink it. (This is a fallacy)
People say we have been drinking raw cows milk since the dawn of time, therefore it is safe.
Just because people used to drink dirty water in the past and seemed to live "ok" doesn't mean we shouldn't take the measures to drink clean potable water today. Its just not a good argument.
A person with scientific background states otherwise (raw milk is unsafe) and uses empirical evidence to support their data.
Once the person arguing for the side of safe raw milk realizes they are wrong, they then say was it necessary to use guns and swat team to enforce the law, and the argument changes from health and safety to law and government... Completed different issues. One health and one politically related.
I think there is a line drawn between people that know about science and how certain biological functions work and people that grew up on a farm or think something is safe just because they do it.
If you want to demonstrate that carefully handled raw milk is unsafe, you have to provide evidence for your belief. The same is true for those who believe that raw milk is safe. That's the way arguments work, both formal and informal--they must be logically and evidentially sound.
You are more than welcome to conduct research into the CDC and FDA studies that claim to demonstrate the lack of safety of raw milk and then draw your own conclusions regarding their legitimacy.
|
On a side note my friend just got back from California from a conference. He said everything was a bit cheaper than here in Hungary, especially food :/
|
On August 09 2011 05:54 Voros wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2011 05:34 NET wrote:
So I have been monitoring this thread off and on in the past couple of days, and there seems to be a trend in the posts as follows:
People say raw milk is safe, therefore everyone should drink it. (This is a fallacy)
People say we have been drinking raw cows milk since the dawn of time, therefore it is safe.
Just because people used to drink dirty water in the past and seemed to live "ok" doesn't mean we shouldn't take the measures to drink clean potable water today. Its just not a good argument.
A person with scientific background states otherwise (raw milk is unsafe) and uses empirical evidence to support their data.
Once the person arguing for the side of safe raw milk realizes they are wrong, they then say was it necessary to use guns and swat team to enforce the law, and the argument changes from health and safety to law and government... Completed different issues. One health and one politically related.
I think there is a line drawn between people that know about science and how certain biological functions work and people that grew up on a farm or think something is safe just because they do it.
If you want to demonstrate that carefully handled raw milk is unsafe, you have to provide evidence for your belief. The same is true for those who believe that raw milk is safe. That's the way arguments work, both formal and informal--they must be logically and evidentially sound. You are more than welcome to conduct research into the CDC and FDA studies that claim to demonstrate the lack of safety of raw milk and then draw your own conclusions regarding their legitimacy.
Read the thread, my point exactly... There are some posted studies in this thread and actual people that work with certain microbes personal experience...
The main point of my most recent post was that people keep on reviving older issues that already been dealt with. That is why the OP was edited to show the dangers of raw milk...
Edit: Oh as for carefully handled raw milk being safe, how do you know it was handled carefully? Assuming it will be handled safely is just not a safe assumption.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
