|
On August 06 2011 15:38 Nagano wrote:
Instead of sitting there wondering how you can get that guy back on the forums, open up your mind to the benefits of living outside the legislative clusterfuck that is the 21st century U.S.
I have never, at any point in time, wanted to eat or drink something but couldn't because of the law. And have you ever even been outside the U.S? Trust me, nothing makes me more appreciative of the U.S then a trip to Venezuela, which I do usually once a year.
So many people in this country don't really appreciate what it has and other nations don't. Now, that doesn't mean you should sit back and let the government do whatever it wants, because the U.S. government has and at times continues to do some pretty horrible things, but whining about food regulations that are meant to keep foods that cause disease out of the market? Come on. It's not like the government is banning certain kinds of food-they're simply trying to keep disease from spreading more than it has. We don't need people filling the hospital because people were selling raw milk and consumers weren't aware of the risks.
|
Well it didn't meet standards so yeah the arrest is fine.
Also why are these protesters so dumb, it's always the same group asking cops. they just need to figure out that cops are just doing their job and know nothing about the exact laws. >_>
|
Some people just don't like solid bowel movements.
|
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!
Let me rewrite this in an attempt to help you think more before posting like this. Say instead of raw milk, it was uranium...according to you, you should have the right to use it and put others in danger because it's, like, you know, your rights or something? What kind of ignorant bullshit is that? And just for the record, it's the same way in the rest of the world too so don't blame America for something any other country would do (you do something massively illegal = government tries to stop you).
lol and I got to ask, do you honestly think that this raid has anything to do with a food pyramid either? Cuz I'm not seeing even the slightest connection.
|
On August 06 2011 15:01 Cold-Blood wrote:Show nested quote +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!
After I saw this I was extremely amazed you were smart enough to find this information and make a post. What is going through your head dumbass? The food pyramid wasn't made by the government, it's a real scientific truth..... They tell us what is safe and healthy so their entire nation doesn't ummmmm I don't know....die? Wow
Seriously, the pyramid food isn't just "outdated" its flat out wrong.
|
On August 06 2011 14:42 Mr. Nefarious wrote:California is the 48th least free state in the union and somewhere I won't even vacation anymore due to their outrageous laws. Many of the everyday items I own including my car are illegal in California for seemingly no reason. Arn't you guys glad you voted for huge government and spending? They even have the time now to tell you what to eat and to raid grocery stores that have evil milk.. http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011/CA
I would hardly call it a grocery store...hes selling potentially harmful food without going through the proper channels to make sure its safe and legal. Its his own fault.
|
On August 06 2011 15:52 gorbonic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 15:35 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:31 Bactrian wrote:On August 06 2011 15:26 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:24 Zzoram wrote:On August 06 2011 15:22 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:09 gorbonic wrote:As a general response (I can't hold back): Please, please, please note the difference between raw and organic milk. Pasteurized organic milk is perfectly legal in California. What "the government" is wary of is RAW (unpasteurized) milk. This is also a Federal issue. For reference: FDA information on Milk SafetyIs it safe to consume raw milk? A: No. Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose...From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater. I hope that clears up any misconceptions. Holy shit 2 deaths in 10 years, someone call the SWAT team. Oh wait.... It was only 2 deaths because selling raw milk was illegal during that 10 year period and very little raw milk was consumed as a result of strict enforcement of the law. Point still stands. I don't even have to state how much alcohol kills. Or driving. Or being obese. Or smoking. Or standing upside down on your hands. Get the point? Except there is no reason to drink raw milk? Drinking = consumption of alcohol, alcohol is the dangerous element. Smoking = the consumption of nicotine and tobacco, nicotine and tobacco are the dangerous elements. What exactly is the advantage of raw milk? Sorry what's the point of drinking alcohol again... You can't take 5 minutes to google the advantages of raw (milk) consumption? I just took five minutes to google the advantages of raw milk consumption. There are none. I've linked in an earlier post to the FDA's Q&A on raw milk.
it's not that raw milk has more, or better nutritional value in it. it's simply that (organic) raw milk has no hormones, rBST, rBGH, or whatever else conventional milk is allowed to have in it. some people take solace in the fact that they don't have that stuff in their bodies
|
On August 06 2011 16:16 Binky1842 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 15:52 gorbonic wrote:On August 06 2011 15:35 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:31 Bactrian wrote:On August 06 2011 15:26 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:24 Zzoram wrote:On August 06 2011 15:22 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:09 gorbonic wrote:As a general response (I can't hold back): Please, please, please note the difference between raw and organic milk. Pasteurized organic milk is perfectly legal in California. What "the government" is wary of is RAW (unpasteurized) milk. This is also a Federal issue. For reference: FDA information on Milk SafetyIs it safe to consume raw milk? A: No. Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose...From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater. I hope that clears up any misconceptions. Holy shit 2 deaths in 10 years, someone call the SWAT team. Oh wait.... It was only 2 deaths because selling raw milk was illegal during that 10 year period and very little raw milk was consumed as a result of strict enforcement of the law. Point still stands. I don't even have to state how much alcohol kills. Or driving. Or being obese. Or smoking. Or standing upside down on your hands. Get the point? Except there is no reason to drink raw milk? Drinking = consumption of alcohol, alcohol is the dangerous element. Smoking = the consumption of nicotine and tobacco, nicotine and tobacco are the dangerous elements. What exactly is the advantage of raw milk? Sorry what's the point of drinking alcohol again... You can't take 5 minutes to google the advantages of raw (milk) consumption? I just took five minutes to google the advantages of raw milk consumption. There are none. I've linked in an earlier post to the FDA's Q&A on raw milk. it's not that raw milk has more, or better nutritional value in it. it's simply that (organic) raw milk has no hormones, rBST, rBGH, or whatever else conventional milk is allowed to have in it. some people take solace in the fact that they don't have that stuff in their bodies
Guess what? Organic pasteurized milk also has none of that stuff, but it also has no deadly bacteria!
|
On August 06 2011 16:19 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 16:16 Binky1842 wrote:On August 06 2011 15:52 gorbonic wrote:On August 06 2011 15:35 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:31 Bactrian wrote:On August 06 2011 15:26 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:24 Zzoram wrote:On August 06 2011 15:22 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:09 gorbonic wrote:As a general response (I can't hold back): Please, please, please note the difference between raw and organic milk. Pasteurized organic milk is perfectly legal in California. What "the government" is wary of is RAW (unpasteurized) milk. This is also a Federal issue. For reference: FDA information on Milk SafetyIs it safe to consume raw milk? A: No. Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose...From 1998 to 2008, 85 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,614 reported illnesses, 187 hospitalizations and 2 deaths. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater. I hope that clears up any misconceptions. Holy shit 2 deaths in 10 years, someone call the SWAT team. Oh wait.... It was only 2 deaths because selling raw milk was illegal during that 10 year period and very little raw milk was consumed as a result of strict enforcement of the law. Point still stands. I don't even have to state how much alcohol kills. Or driving. Or being obese. Or smoking. Or standing upside down on your hands. Get the point? Except there is no reason to drink raw milk? Drinking = consumption of alcohol, alcohol is the dangerous element. Smoking = the consumption of nicotine and tobacco, nicotine and tobacco are the dangerous elements. What exactly is the advantage of raw milk? Sorry what's the point of drinking alcohol again... You can't take 5 minutes to google the advantages of raw (milk) consumption? I just took five minutes to google the advantages of raw milk consumption. There are none. I've linked in an earlier post to the FDA's Q&A on raw milk. it's not that raw milk has more, or better nutritional value in it. it's simply that (organic) raw milk has no hormones, rBST, rBGH, or whatever else conventional milk is allowed to have in it. some people take solace in the fact that they don't have that stuff in their bodies Guess what? Organic pasteurized milk also has none of that stuff, but it also has no deadly bacteria!
pasteurizing alters the flavor of milk a little
|
I can sympathize with these people but they are so freaking obnoxious it makes me want to slap them instead.
|
On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can eat whatever organic food you want, but if you want to sell it you have to comply with regulations/agree to have your product tested to ensure it meets standard. This guy didn't and got arrested, simple as that.
and its nothing to do with the law against drugs, its about preventing selling of food that has not been tested and may not be safe.
By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse.
so you have no clue what organic is about? its not about health benefits for you its not about better taste, its about using natural resources and not abusing them
|
On August 06 2011 16:21 Binky1842 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 16:19 Zzoram wrote:On August 06 2011 16:16 Binky1842 wrote:On August 06 2011 15:52 gorbonic wrote:On August 06 2011 15:35 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:31 Bactrian wrote:On August 06 2011 15:26 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:24 Zzoram wrote:On August 06 2011 15:22 Nagano wrote:On August 06 2011 15:09 gorbonic wrote:As a general response (I can't hold back): Please, please, please note the difference between raw and organic milk. Pasteurized organic milk is perfectly legal in California. What "the government" is wary of is RAW (unpasteurized) milk. This is also a Federal issue. For reference: FDA information on Milk Safety[quote] I hope that clears up any misconceptions. Holy shit 2 deaths in 10 years, someone call the SWAT team. Oh wait.... It was only 2 deaths because selling raw milk was illegal during that 10 year period and very little raw milk was consumed as a result of strict enforcement of the law. Point still stands. I don't even have to state how much alcohol kills. Or driving. Or being obese. Or smoking. Or standing upside down on your hands. Get the point? Except there is no reason to drink raw milk? Drinking = consumption of alcohol, alcohol is the dangerous element. Smoking = the consumption of nicotine and tobacco, nicotine and tobacco are the dangerous elements. What exactly is the advantage of raw milk? Sorry what's the point of drinking alcohol again... You can't take 5 minutes to google the advantages of raw (milk) consumption? I just took five minutes to google the advantages of raw milk consumption. There are none. I've linked in an earlier post to the FDA's Q&A on raw milk. it's not that raw milk has more, or better nutritional value in it. it's simply that (organic) raw milk has no hormones, rBST, rBGH, or whatever else conventional milk is allowed to have in it. some people take solace in the fact that they don't have that stuff in their bodies Guess what? Organic pasteurized milk also has none of that stuff, but it also has no deadly bacteria! pasteurizing alters the flavor of milk a little
That's the crux of the raw milk movement. It all comes down to preferring a slightly different taste, at the risk of death.
|
You'd think the public is educated in this age of internet and huge influx of medical & health information. I beg to differ - as the result of that, they are more ignorant than ever.
Believe it or not, the public do need proper authorities to protect them from harm - especially when it comes to food. Yes they build us, but they can break us just as easy.
|
On August 06 2011 16:23 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can eat whatever organic food you want, but if you want to sell it you have to comply with regulations/agree to have your product tested to ensure it meets standard. This guy didn't and got arrested, simple as that.
and its nothing to do with the law against drugs, its about preventing selling of food that has not been tested and may not be safe.
By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse. so you have no clue what organic is about? its not about health benefits for you its not about better taste, its about using natural resources and not abusing them
it's why the larger producer of organic foods in america grows most of it in china right! Also organic is worse for soil depending on what process is being used to grow and maintain the fields and the environment it often means used outdated and more toxic means of pesticides to keep the food from being worm filled. If you didn't know organic doesn't mean pesticide free just means the pesticide is organic too! This is about people being afraid of minute traces of chemicals in their food rather have that then no food because an apple cost 4 times as much. Also to an adult trace amounts of random chemicals usually means shit hell Teflon is in most of our systems. Want better health i guess people living to 70+ on avg isn't good enough for some.
|
On August 06 2011 14:40 Triscuit wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yes, because otherwise, with mass production, you would not be able to sell any of the "milk".
See, the fresh milk produced by healthy cows you can put in a container and let it sit there, unrefridgerated, for about a day. What you'll get is not the digusting bacteria-swarming piss you get if you do the same with homogenised pasteurised milk, you will get what's called soured milk (not to be confused with the former, which is just milk gone sour). Now the former you cannot (should not) eat/drink, whereas you can safely consume the latter.
I grew up in a village with healthy cows around (no specially bred milk-cows as far as I know); every now and then we went to get fresh milk. Tastes awesome, by the way. My immune system beat measles (I got measles like a week before the scheduled vaccination date) and scarlet fever (which immediately followed measles). I've also had pertussis, for about a day. Every child illness there is, for which I hadn't been vaccinated (or for which there had been no vaccination) I beat in the shortest time. Of course my overall diet was pretty healthy (semi-hippie household with respect to the food), but my point is: raw milk isn't bad, yo. Maybe you shouldn't feed it to babies, but then again, you shouldn't feed babies anything but breast milk (from a mother who doesn't do any drugs*) for about 6-12 months.
*obviously including alcohol, nicotine, caffeine
|
This is a pretty interesting situation - on the one hand, you have customers who want the opportunity of buying organic food. However, if something went wrong and people got sick, you can bet the media will get on the FDA's case about why action was not taken.
In my opinion, the USA has gone too far with lawsuits. I think the responsibility should shift back to the consumer and producer about keeping themselves informed about the risks / benefits. If the producers warn the consumers about the potential dangers, that should be good enough in my opinion.
As an aside, I also think that the USA has too many lawsuits.
|
All you people supporting the arrest have obviously never tasted raw, unhomogenized, unpasteurized whole milk. That stuff is beyond amazing.
|
You can eat w.e shit you want but not sell it for obvious reason, the law is the law and if the guy pissed of the police/didn't payed there bribes to keep his club open is his fault tbh.
On August 06 2011 16:52 Dalguno wrote:
All you people supporting the arrest have obviously never tasted raw, unhomogenized, unpasteurized whole milk. That stuff is beyond amazing.
Iv milked it from my aunts cow and then tasted it right from the bucket and it was to hot and kind funny tasting ( I also drank "organic" milk many times since i spent a lot of time with my grandparents at there ... kind of... farm right next to my aunt hose and she brought as milk almost every day)... i prefer the UHT milk tbh... to much taste just ruins the milk for me.
|
I think what the government did was the right thing to do. The food just needs to be tainted once and hundreds of people would be screwed and I don't really think anyone should be put under that risk.
|
how dare the FDA protect people from fun diseases such as e.coli, salmonella and tuberculosis
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
