EPTno.
Dairy is very easy to spread this kind of stuff. Those hippies dont know what they are talking about. those people in the video are kinda insane.
California Raids Rawesome Food - Page 7
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Marcus420
Canada1923 Posts
no. Dairy is very easy to spread this kind of stuff. Those hippies dont know what they are talking about. those people in the video are kinda insane. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
| ||
|
Ropid
Germany3557 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:42 Papulatus wrote: 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. If you really want unpasteurized milk you can just buy yourself a goat and milk it every morning, just like my grandpa did when my mother was born at the end of WW2. | ||
|
J_D
United States102 Posts
| ||
|
Thunder_Sturm
United States36 Posts
Certification Fact Sheet Background Fact Sheet Labelling and Marketting Fact Sheet If you're interested in reading a 20 page legal document, you can also view the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, which describes the role of the National Organic Program. Some selections from the Background Fact Sheet: The NOP regulations prohibit the use of genetic engineering, ionizing radiation, and sewage sludge in organic production and handling. As a general rule, all natural (non-synthetic) substances are allowed in organic production and all synthetic substances are prohibited. The National List of Allowed Synthetic and Prohibited Non-Synthetic Substances, a section in the regulations, contains the specific exceptions to the rule. You can view the list of exceptions to the rules about synthetic substances at The National Organic Program, sections 205.601 and 205.603. It seems to mostly be things like chemicals used in insect traps or for sanitising equipment, which don't come into direct contact with soil or produce, or fairly harmless chemicals like alcohols, iodine, or glucose. So it looks pretty harmless, but there are several chemicals that I don't recognise so I'm unable to comment on them. Read it yourself to find out whether you think organic foods are safer for yourself and for the environment than other foods are  . Of course, some organic compounds can also be dangerous.Producers and handling (processing) operations that sell less than $5,000 a year in organic agricultural products are exempt from certification. They may label their products organic if they abide by the standards, but they cannot display the USDA Organic seal. Retail operations, such as grocery stores and restaurants, do not have to be certified. I'm very curious about this last part. It sounds as though grocery stores could label any product as organic if they feel like it. I don't think this is an accurate assessment, because grocery stores labelling inorganic products as organic would drive organic farms out of business. But I haven't found any other information on legal requirements of retail operations selling organic foods. A short passage in the Organic Foods Production Act says that states may have their own organic food programs with additional requirements, so you'd have to check with your state to find out for sure whether your foods are required to have better (or worse) quality and/or environmental impact. However, it appears that California is the only state currently using such a program (see: USDA Approved State Programs). | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
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 Hah! Taxes on cigs, alcohol, spending heavily on public utilities, and bans on driving while using a cell phone are strikes against my state's freedom. My friend, I do not want that freedom. | ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
Watch out for the "chemicals"! ooooo scary. | ||
|
Crisco
1170 Posts
Some of you are arguing that so and so countries allow you to drink raw milk, but in the end, it is a bit different. The risks are still there but it's also possible that the people of the countries have better tolerance. Another thing people don't take into account is the possibility that the E. coli might be a highly lethal strain. The moment that happens, 80-90% of the people who drank that milk could be sick or dead. Lastly, non-pasteurized milk is not organic food. Organic milk is cows that's been fed certain select kinds of foods & POSSIBLY being raised in certain kinds of conditions. In fact, i'd argue that organic foods are MORE likely to be dirty than non-organic foods. Organic veggies, for example, use natural fertilizer (poop, manure, e.coli, salmonella, you name it) while non--organic veggies use chemicals. It's a matter of which you want to risk. Something that may kill you (if unlucky) immediately or something that may harm you over the long run. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote: I'm actually sort of surprised this hasn't come up in teamliquid at all, or at least I haven't been able to find a thread about this. In California, a private club that focuses on selling organic food and milk was raided by law enforcement. The owner was arrested and put into an unmarked car. He was allegedly not read his rights. His bail has been set at $123,000. The charge is that they were in possession of illegal raw cow and goat milk The FDA, CDC, and LAPD were involved in the raid. After arresting the owner, they proceeded to destroy all product within the store. http://www.naturalnews.com/033220_Rawesome_Foods_armed_raids.html I would like to open several things up for discussion here. Number one, why is there almost no national media coverage? Local California news is covering this story like no one's business, but you can find maybe one article on CNN covering this story. Half the article talks about how dangerous organic milk is. Just head right on over to the health and fitness initiative to find out who's right about that. Here's the article: http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2010/07/26/cheese-seized-public-health-department-raids-raw-dairy-vendor/ Number two: We've remained quiet about the war on drugs, but now we have a war on organic food? Just how far does the government plan on going with telling us what we can and cannot have in our systems? They might have an argument that you are a danger to others when on drugs, but what possible danger can you have to others for eating and drinking organic? Why is the government now telling us what we can and cannot eat/drink? 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! As always, please keep the conversation civil. If you disagree with my opinion, feel free to post a counterargument that will persuade me. edit: It is not up for debate whether or not what this guy did was illegal. According to Cali law it is illegal. The debate I want to start here is whether or not this is a good law. Well, normally I'd be completely on board with you hating on the government for telling people what they can or cannot do, but in this case it is warranted. Raw milk like that can be a breeding ground for bacteria or any number of things, and can be exceptionally dangerous. This may come as a surprise to people, but 'organic' (What is that supposed to mean anyway? I'd like to see food that is inorganic) food isn't actually healthier or better for you, and is often more likely to get you sick do to a lack of protection from contaminants. All that nasty scientific modified food? Yeah, that stuff is way safer and healthier most of the time, as long as you aren't eating twinkies etc. The fact is, the chemicals that are used to make all that wonderful tasty food that most people eat are not dangerous an are in fact quite helpful. Yay science! | ||
|
viOLetFanClub
Korea (South)390 Posts
| ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
| ||
|
Chylo
United States220 Posts
On August 07 2011 00:29 Crisco wrote: unpasteurized stuff is playing with fire. Juices are probably the safest of things to be pasteurized but from a marketing stand point, everything has to be pasteurized. Even a .1% chance of causing e. coli poisoning means that whenever 1million individuals drink, 1000 will get sick. That's 1000 people who may sue you for unclean products. Haha. 1. Unpasteurized (raw) milk is legal for sale in California. http://www.organicpastures.com Their milk has NEVER been found to contain bacteria over the course of many years of heavy testing of their milk by the FDA, including tons of random tests. 2. Whole foods sells unpasteurized orange juice all day every day. It's really not that scary. People consumed raw milk for the past 5000 years just fine. It's only because of the mass production of very low quality milk that caused the enforcement of pasteurization. In other words, the milk was such poor quality that they superheated it to kill off everything bad (AND good) inside the milk. Lactose intolerance is directly caused by pasteurized milk, as the nutritional elements necessary to digest dairy are eliminated when the dairy is pasteurized. I've had raw milk from 3-4 different farms over 4 years with no problems. It's way better tasting, does not have its nutritional profile denatured, and has an extremely beneficial fat profile. | ||
|
Voros
United States222 Posts
This is what my nation has come to: private citizens are no longer permitted to purchase the food or drink they desire without first receiving permission from government regulators and bureaucrats. In fact, in some states (including my home state), you would be guilty of a felony if you were to milk a cow and gift that raw, unpasteurized milk to your neighbor or relative for human consumption. And yes, anyone raised on a farm can attest to the fact that there is a noticeable and undeniable difference in quality between raw milk and pasteurized milk. The same is also true for cheese, butter, and eggs. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
oh, and raw/organic milk is actually quite healthy. So much spin. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On August 07 2011 00:35 Whitewing wrote: Well, normally I'd be completely on board with you hating on the government for telling people what they can or cannot do, but in this case it is warranted. Raw milk like that can be a breeding ground for bacteria or any number of things, and can be exceptionally dangerous. That is hotly debated. searching for raw milk on google will give you a lot of hits claiming both that its safer, and less safe. I personally am more convinced it is completely safe, handled properly. EDIT: here: http://www.benzinga.com/pressreleases/11/08/b1826311/government-data-proves-raw-milk-safe This may come as a surprise to people, but 'organic' (What is that supposed to mean anyway? I'd like to see food that is inorganic) food isn't actually healthier or better for you, and is often more likely to get you sick do to a lack of protection from contaminants. are you trolling? You don't understand that organic food is non-genetically modified food that is grown without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides? And I'd really like to see you try to substantiate the 'more likely to get you sick' claim without ignoring the entire scientific consensus on the issue. All that nasty scientific modified food? Yeah, that stuff is way safer and healthier most of the time, as long as you aren't eating twinkies etc. The fact is, the chemicals that are used to make all that wonderful tasty food that most people eat are not dangerous an are in fact quite helpful. Yay science! ???? oh, and a forbes article on the raid: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/04/the-rawesome-raid-and-raw-milk-controversy/ I'd like to echo this sentiment: On August 07 2011 01:04 Voros wrote: Most posters are missing the point, namely that this is an imposition on private citizens by government agents who are acting in no one's best interests but their own. Whether you believe raw or organic foods to be superior in terms of ethics or quality to their mainstream counterparts is irrelevant--this is about choice, not hippie beliefs vs. those of the commodities industry. | ||
|
Serelitz
Netherlands2895 Posts
Again, if they didn't follow health regulations they got raided for a reason. And in case you mean the regulations are bad, it's the same reason cigarettes are taxed so much. Common interest to not pay for people who make themselves sick. edit: Don't let this degenerate into a medicare debate please. I'm obviously not American so not educated to debate it, but it is there for everyone so it is in everyone's best interest not to pay more because a few dumb people. This is only wrong if it'd be proven that raw food is actually better than pasteurized food in a way, but it's not. Unpasteurized food is just a health risk, just like cigarettes without nicotine filters. | ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On August 07 2011 01:04 Voros wrote: Most posters are missing the point, namely that this is an imposition on private citizens by government agents who are acting in no one's best interests but their own. Whether you believe raw or organic foods to be superior in terms of ethics or quality to their mainstream counterparts is irrelevant--this is about choice, not hippie beliefs vs. those of the commodities industry. This is what my nation has come to: private citizens are no longer permitted to purchase the food or drink they desire without first receiving permission from government regulators and bureaucrats. In fact, in some states (including my home state), you would be guilty of a felony if you were to milk a cow and gift that raw, unpasteurized milk to your neighbor or relative for human consumption. And yes, anyone raised on a farm can attest to the fact that there is a noticeable and undeniable difference in quality between raw milk and pasteurized milk. The same is also true for cheese, butter, and eggs. While they might be an imposition now, it's only because of the rapid growth of the organic food industry over the last few years. When legislation banning the sale of raw milk was passed, it was highly relevant, due to standards of health and hygiene way below what they can be/are now and contamination was way more likely. The government banning the sale of a certain product is not an imposition of your freedom, as long as there's good reason for it. There used to be a good reason to do so, but with current standards of hygiene that can be achieved in dairy farms (not to mention safety during transport), it might not be anymore and needs to be relevaluted for that reason. Not everything is 'the government acting in it's best interest'. | ||
|
RoosterSamurai
Japan2108 Posts
On August 06 2011 14:34 HellRoxYa wrote: 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. I don't think it's illegal to drink gasoline, and that is arguably worse for you than organic milk. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On August 06 2011 17:47 Gamegene wrote: Would you disagree with seatbelt laws here in California? It's required for you to wear a seatbelt at all times driving a car otherwise you get a ticket. Is that wrong? Is it wrong for you to be required to put it on for personal safety? I understand your point, but this kind of stuff is really really really small considering the disparity between risks and rewards involved. Yes, I disagree with seatbelt laws. I'm sure everyone is well aware that their chances of survival decrease significantly in a severe accident if they aren't wearing one. They can choose to forgo this protection for convenience (delivering something door to door from their vehicle as I've done), for comfort (sleeping across the backseats of a car) or just because they're idiots and want to look cool. Here's my rationale for letting them do it: -I find the notion of legislating against self-harm ridiculous. Should we also crack down on people who don't eat enough vegetables? Maybe emo kids who cut themselves? If someone chronically self-harms or is severely negligent of their own life, it is a medical problem, not a legal one. If anything, we should get them counseling or on some sort of medication to balance out their brain's biochemistry and help them make "better" choices. Preferably the patient would be admitted by themselves or their family, but I don't entirely disagree with the state intervening here. -Philosophically, I believe I should have complete autonomy over my person. If my actions do not harm others, they should not be illegal. If seen applied to something like seatbelt laws, this seems trivial. If applied to something like euthanasia, this gets a lot more serious. It's appalling to me that people in prolonged states of suffering don't have the freedom to end their own life with dignity. If we can't look after our own affairs, our own body and our own life, then freedom is just a buzzword. -Increasing moral/public safety legislation poses a number of problems for me. Firstly, it obviously expands the size of the state. Look at the war on drugs. All that money spent on investigation and incarceration. I have to pay for that (to a much lesser extent in Canada, thank god). Secondly, it is often very difficult to enforce. This means fines will be rather arbitrary, given to whoever was in the wrong place at the wrong time and didn't conceal the action well enough from police. If an individual officer or local police force were corrupt, this could lead to the targeting of specific individuals (by race, political affiliation, etc). It also means that, in order to enforce such unenforceable legislation, government will harness the power of moral panic and seek to expand its powers of detention and surveillance, among other things. I'm not so paranoid as to think that the US is one step away from fascism, but I'm certainly uncomfortable with this. On August 06 2011 18:32 Excludos wrote: 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? We absolutely do not share the same opinion. I think you misunderstand me. You have clearly stated, "If its potentially dangerous to consume then it shouldn't be legal." I believe that dangerous goods/narcotics should have warning labels on them and that adults should be able to consume them. This specific case is more complicated because they have been feeding their children (who are too young to decide for themselves) the products, but even if we did agree on this one issue, we're coming at it from completely different philosophies. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On August 06 2011 23:42 Papulatus wrote: 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. Hate to break it to you pal, but even in America you're expected to be a part of society and be a law abiding citizen. Thanks for buying into political rhetoric though. | ||
| ||
