|
On August 06 2011 17:40 3clipse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2011 17:35 Excludos wrote:On August 06 2011 17:19 Gamegene wrote:
Where's the controversy here?
The guy didn't follow the rules and got in trouble for it.
The consumer safety laws are in place so you don't get crappy food that won't make you sick, not so they can pick on you, jesus christ. People are getting huffy and puffy over no reason.
Just follow the fucking rules and you'll be fine! This times 10. I can't believe people are answering with "We should be allowed to do what we want!". No, you shouldn't be, that would be anarchy. If its potentially dangerous to consume (and in this case, dangerous for everyone around you), then it shouldn't be legal. Yes. Lets outlaw everything that's "potentially dangerous". Awesome idea. We'll end up sitting in front of our tv's 24/7 covered in bubble wrap. Laws should exist to protect you from other people, not to protect you from yourself. Only education can truly do that. Inform people of the risks and let them make their own choices. I think it's outrageous when that choice is taken from adults and one still considers their society "free". I am conflicted over this situation, however. They're feeding this stuff to their kids, and that shouldn't be allowed. Until someone of sound mind reaches the age of majority, there should be regulations in place to prevent them from making bad choices or having bad choices thrust upon them by their parents.
Why in the world would you twist my words against me when we share the same opinion? You can not possibly know if some milk is dangerous or not when you go to a store to buy it. Thats why we have regulations.
Its not just feeding it to your kids, its feeding it to yourself thinking its safe, and maybe infecting everyone you sneeze on. Should this really be legal just because you like to exaggurate?
|
Part of the reason I completely avoid organic/bio/whatever food, is that their producers think they're above health and safety regulations. Unfortunately in a few cases, they are. Apart from that, it's just a marketing ploy.
On August 06 2011 14:41 shinosai wrote:
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.
Informed consent is in the play here. When you're smoking cigarettes, you know you're going to fucking die. When you drink milk or eat food, you expect it to be healthy and to comply with regulations.
|
2011 meta study on health benefits of organic food
Abstract from the study
The paper gives an overview of recent studies investigating the health value of organic foods and presents a framework for estimating the scientific impact of these studies. Furthermore, the problems connected with the different research approaches are being discussed. 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. 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. 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.
People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right.
|
That first video is pretty silly. All those people standing around bitching at the police are wasting their time. If people have a problem with the laws in this country, whining to the people whose job is to ENFORCE the law is the wrong approach. They should be picketing outside of Congress or the FDA Headquarters.
|
On August 06 2011 19:04 Traeon wrote:2011 meta study on health benefits of organic foodAbstract from the studyThe paper gives an overview of recent studies investigating the health value of organic foods and presents a framework for estimating the scientific impact of these studies. Furthermore, the problems connected with the different research approaches are being discussed. 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. 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. Animal studies carried out so far have demonstrated positive effects of an organic diet on weight, growth, fertility indices and immune system. [b]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. People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right.
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.
"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."
It seems like that would be the case for any plant? Put it in better soil and better weather and it should be more nutritious than otherwise. But anyway, I would definitely put this particular piece of evidence in the "organic foods aren't necessarily more nutritious" camp. But I would also check more studies.
|
Shittily biased OP.
This isn't some spontaneous attack on organic food or a case of TOO BIG and SCREWY GOVERNMENT. Its regular government enforcing policy passed by legislators, and doing something correctly for once.
|
On August 06 2011 19:20 Armathai wrote:
Shittily biased OP.
This isn't some spontaneous attack on organic food or a case of TOO BIG and SCREWY GOVERNMENT. Its regular government enforcing policy passed by legislators, and doing something correctly for once.
Strongly agree with this sentiment.
|
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.
|
On August 06 2011 14:38 susySquark wrote:
So you're telling me, I can start a farm, poop in it every day, and sell you the food without government regulation?
Thats an extreme, but there are checks for a reason. "Organic" can be good for you, but oftentimes it just as bad, if not worse. In essence, "organic" can be directly translated to "without the benefits of modern technology."
Actually, Organic often just means a certain type of e.g. pesticide is used, not that one isn't used at all.
The issue is pretty clear cut: there are well-defined laws to make sure food as a whole is healthy and you must comply with them, regardless of whether or not you agree with them.
|
Ironically refined carbs are not regulated at all, eventhough it's far more detrimental to people's health.
Double standard.
|
Well, most Europeans drink raw farm milk, as long as cow's are healthy and eat fresh, milk is fresh, there is basically no way you can get something...so if you ask me law should be regulated so that cow's that make milk are tested and raw milk should be non illegal, but i think point of this is so US can tax it and take money from it. (I might be wrong, i am not sure about this and its 100% assuming, based on my knowledge)
|
Oh boooo hooo!
Please. Ever heard of this French dude named Pasteur? Raw milk that hasn't been pasteurized is fucking bad for you, end of story. It's the FDA's job to keep people from selling disgusting food or drugs that knowingly harm you. Don't whine about it. Maybe you have the right to whine about pot not being legal or whatever, but RAW MILK?
On August 06 2011 23:01 LionKiNG wrote:
Well, most Europeans drink raw farm milk, as long as cow's are healthy and eat fresh, milk is fresh, there is basically no way you can get something...so if you ask me law should be regulated so that cow's that make milk are tested and raw milk should be non illegal, but i think point of this is so US can tax it and take money from it. (I might be wrong, i am not sure about this and its 100% assuming, based on my knowledge)
Bull. Bacteria thrive in that environment. It doesn't matter how many times you washed your cow, or how many vitamins you fed it. Pasteurization was developed by a French chemist IN ORDER TO PREVENT MICROBIAL GROWTH in raw milk and raw wine. Seriously! I thought this was super basic/general knowledge.
As for the other stuff, I haven't read it, but all I will say right now is that complaining about not being able to sell raw milk freely in a public place is absolutely absurd.
|
On August 06 2011 23:01 LionKiNG wrote:
Well, most Europeans drink raw farm milk, as long as cow's are healthy and eat fresh, milk is fresh, there is basically no way you can get something...so if you ask me law should be regulated so that cow's that make milk are tested and raw milk should be non illegal, but i think point of this is so US can tax it and take money from it. (I might be wrong, i am not sure about this and its 100% assuming, based on my knowledge)
What you are referring to is pasteurized milk, not raw milk. There aren't many people in Europe that drink 'raw milk'. What's marketed in European supermarkets as 'organic milk' is still pasteurized milk.
|
On August 06 2011 19:04 Traeon wrote:2011 meta study on health benefits of organic foodAbstract from the studyThe paper gives an overview of recent studies investigating the health value of organic foods and presents a framework for estimating the scientific impact of these studies. Furthermore, the problems connected with the different research approaches are being discussed. 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. 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. 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. People who say organic food is more healthy are probably right.
But this sound pretty different from drinking non-pasteurized milk. I'd have to know what they're considering as "organic food". There's also no evidence in humans, as stated right before the bolded part. Also, This evidence is about food derived from animals grown with organic food. I'd read it thouroughly, since the abstract lacks so much data, but I don't want to pay those hefty 32 bucks lol.
|
On August 06 2011 14:34 HellRoxYa 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! Seriously? There are very good reasons for the government telling you that some stuff is bad for you. I doubt the milk is bad for you, and yes, there should probably not be laws against it. However, in a more general sense, I think you're out of your mind.
This. Obviously not the case entirely in the united states but in my country (where health care is partially paid for everyone through taxes) it actually COSTS society money if you're going out and eating food that makes you sick.
|
More people who failed third grade science. Pasteurization guys, It's a good thing.
|
On August 06 2011 14:44 Ojahh wrote:I think there is to sides to this, this Show nested quote +organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse. is a statement out of proportion, there are several situations were organic food is beneficial, and yes it is often over priced, but so is a bottle of Coke as well. And I also don't believe, that this raid came out of nowhere, I am guessing there is gonna be a back story about warnings that were given to them, about untreated food being sold, and they decided to stick it to the man, so seems to do the OP. intriguing... I will follow this, will be interesting what becomes of it. edit: Ohh and wow at all the people shitting on the state for telling you what you have to do with your milk. just on the minor example of pasteurization and for our hardcore organic friends Ill even go with "Cold-pasteurization" [which preserves more enzymes in the milk] you prevent a whole variety of diseases, starting with the all known Salmonells, Listeria as well as Staphylococcen, and Coli bacteria, plus many more and lots of these can spread after wards through contact, I don't know how many of you remember the over hundred people that died and got seriously in Germany 2 month ago, but that happened because of some untreated herb seeds. I buy most my food on the market and especially my eggs and meat I like organic, but before you shit on regulations imposed by the State, consider this, if you consume completely untreated products especially high risk dairy products, you are risking serious infections and are willing to gamble with the lives of everybody around you. You are basically saying I want my milk raw, who cares if the baby I sneeze on in the train gets meningitis. and most of the people who complain why the state is telling them what to do, would get the pitchforks out when there is a Coli epidemic and would blame the state for not doing anything, lets face it.
Very well written and completely agree
Some people on those videos should actually think before making incessive complaints to the people doing the raid.
|
On August 06 2011 17:19 Gamegene wrote:
Where's the controversy here?
The guy didn't follow the rules and got in trouble for it.
The consumer safety laws are in place so you don't get crappy food that won't make you sick, not so they can pick on you, jesus christ. People are getting huffy and puffy over no reason.
Just follow the fucking rules and you'll be fine!
This is a joke, right?
Yes, Just follow the fucking rules! What a brilliant idea! Don't question faulty laws! Don't question potential problems in our society! Just follow the fucking rules! Buy into every rule that is put in place and we'll all be happy, living under a government that controls every fucking aspect of our lives.
This country was based on individual freedom. If I want to buy unpasteurized milk, then for fucks sake let me buy unpasteurized milk. No doubt there should be a warning that it is potentially harmful. The issue with buying unpasteurized milk is that I'm not buying from corporate farmers. God forbid we farm our own food, and sell food that we farm. We should have to buy into huge farms. Make organic farmers just through every fucking loop so that eventually, we don't have any organic, local farms. I find it disgusting that I am allowed to buy cigarettes, but not local organic products that don't have corporate ties.
When it comes down to it, cigarette company's are huge corporations that have pull in the government. Organic farms are small companies with weak ties to the government. Both are potentially harmful yet one is able to legally operate its business.
|
So many people are focusing on the completely unrelated organic food mention in the article. He was arrested for selling unpasteurized milk, which is dangerous and illegal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
