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.
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:
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.
UPDATE:
I think it relevant to now include some information about the dangers of raw milk. It can contain communicable diseases, and these do not only affect the person drinking the raw milk, but also others. This is why it is can be a public health hazard to sell milk that does not pass regulation.
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
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.
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.
Non-Pasteurized milk can be dangerous, not to say all is, but this guy was not complying with federal health and safety regulations, so got shut down. Just because your food is "healthier" doesn't mean you get to go around all the regulations the rest of us do.
That said most organic food really isn't different from "non-organic" food, there have been many cases where people just put organic on it since it means they can sell it for more.
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."
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?
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.
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..
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.
I actually stand behind the FDA and am glad we have them around to prevent unsafe food from reaching the market. There was a book floating around my history class about capitalism and how food plants were managed before they were regulated. I didn't actually read it, but the guys who did lost their appetite for a long time.
I think it's a shame that this violation was handled with an arrest. A simple cease and desist or termination of their store rights should have been pursued over arresting someone and potentially ruining their life. The clients knew what they were buying, it wasn't packaged with some other label. I can understand the arrest if they didn't comply after notification, which might be the case and just isn't headline news.
The term organic has been thrown around so much that it's lost it's original significance of mainly being produced without artificial or synthetic additives, pesticides, hormones, etc. Instead, buy local and/or fair trade products.
This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
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."
I will take organic food over cigarettes and alcohol every day.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
lol so if i want to sell you lead filled candy it is my right to do so!
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
This isn't an issue of what you can put into your body. Its a HEALTH issue. If this place was selling stuff that was not following regulations for food safety then a bunch of people died to some bacteria would you be bitching about how they didn't stop this guy? This was probably a bit of an overreaction by the law enforcement but if he was in fact ignoring the law for the production and storage of food products then its good that something was done.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
lol so if i want to sell you lead filled candy it is my right to do so!
As long as you label it properly and explain the risks, feel free.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
lol so if i want to sell you lead filled candy it is my right to do so!
As long as you label it properly and explain the risks, feel free.
Obviously you never read the book that out raged America and jump started the F in fda
I also love how the OP is spinning this as an attack on organic foods. Seriously be more biased with an OP that gives one side and smacks of righteous indignation. Just how you described how he was arrested made it look 10x bad then it probably was.
is raw milk illegal in california? or did this store get it from a local farm that wasn't certified to have raw milk?
i drink raw milk frequently, as do a few friends, and we've never had any problems with it. there's nothing dangerous with consuming raw food as long as it's prepared/stored correctly (as with any perishable food)
On August 06 2011 14:55 Binky1842 wrote: is raw milk illegal in california? or did this store get it from a local farm that wasn't certified to have raw milk?
i drink raw milk frequently, as do a few friends, and we've never had any problems with it. there's nothing dangerous with consuming raw food as long as it's prepared/stored correctly (as with any perishable food)
raw milk can only be consumed by a cows owner in California so you get rich idiots that half buy cows so they can drink raw milk, as if drinking the milk of another mammal past the age of 3 is natural.
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?
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.
people don't go out and buy raw milk on a whim. raw milk, where i'm from, is about $15 a gallon. people who buy it know what raw milk is and have done their research on it to justify the price of purchasing it.
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.
people don't go out and buy raw milk on a whim. raw milk, where i'm from, is about $15 a gallon. people who buy it know what raw milk is and have done their research on it to justify the price of purchasing it.
They do research like the people who don't vaccinate their kids do research.
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
Calling me a dumbass is not acceptable etiquette here on TL. Please respond with respect and I will do so in return, whether or not I agree with you.
Anyways, it is fairly common knowledge that the food pyramid is highly outdated, and has often been linked to the growing obesity problem. I would encourage you to visit the teamliquid health and fitness initiative, and read up on why. Grains are supposed to be the largest part of our diet, but as much scientific research points out, they are often poisonous to our body. The food pyramid wasn't made by the government, but it was institutionalized and endorsed by it in our educational system. They are not qualified to tell us whether or not organic food is healthy, when they already encourage a diet that may be a contributing factor to obesity.
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.
Is 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.
EDIT: Also, certain kinds of cheese do not fall under the category of "raw milk product" in California, and are legal for sale. If it's ripened or cured for at least 60 days, it can be raw and you'll face no consequences. Once again, good cheese is not an issue. Starcraft players may find this troubling: good cheese?
Here is a summary of California's raw milk laws, according to a pro-raw milk advocacy group (their summary appears to be objective). I've put in bold some lines of interest:
Sales of raw milk and raw milk products are legal both in stores and on the farm. In order for raw milk to be sold legally, it must be 'market milk. 'This is milk that meets the standards provided in the Milk and Milk Products Act of 1947.
Under the Act, market milk is graded and designated into three classes:'certified milk,' 'guaranteed milk,' and 'Grade A milk. 'Of the three classes, only Grade A raw milk is available for sale today in California. The standards for guaranteed raw milk to be market milk are more stringent than those for Grade A raw milk. While the Milk and Milk Products Act calls for county milk commissions to set the standards for certified raw milk, not a single county milk commission still exists.
Raw milk dairy farmers need market milk permits in order to produce their product. In addition, any person engaged in an aspect of the milk business that falls under the statutory definition of milk products plant must obtain a milk products plant license. There is an exemption from the license requirement, however, for "any producer whose business consists exclusively of producing and distributing raw market milk produced by such producer."
Raw milk and most raw milk products require warning labels. Municipalities and counties in the state have the power to establish compulsory pasteurization laws but only Humboldt County has done so.
Based on what has been reported, here's what seems to have happened:
- The FDA was involved, which means the people arrested were probably selling raw milk products that crossed state lines, or else were suspected of doing so.
- Selling raw milk is legal in California, so the suspects probably did some stupid things like sell unlabeled jugs of non-grade A milk without a license.
- They had probably made their illegal activities habitual and had no plans to conform to law, even though it would have been both possible and reasonable to do so.
My conclusion is that the suspects are trying to drum up publicity for their pet ideology. I prefer to stand in line with the scientists and health care workers and people who pay health insurance who have to deal with the "natural" consequences of shady business practice.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
So cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin should be legal, and selling them should be too? Sure, it's your body, but it's the government's responsibility to keep its people safe, and selling food that hasn't been regulated by the FDA and such is not safe (not necessarily unsafe, but one cannot be sure of how safe it is). Hell just look at the post above mine.
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?
I can buy smokes, some 90 proof that will fuck up anyone in 1 minute flat, hfcs up the ass guaranteed to hook me into the healthcare system when I'm 50, fat, and diabetic. Yet, raw milk I beyond that line.
All I'm saying is be open to challenging what is in plain sight, instead of trying to be some letter-of-the-law internet hardass.
Gotta agree with most here that anytime you try to sell stuff like milk and other dairy products without getting them checked out by the FDA your risking your business and others health. Don't see anything wrong with them raiding the joint and locking the head people there up if they weren't following the proper procedures for selling there products. After all anyone could walk in buy some of that milk and feed it to there kids, if one of there kids gets sick for some reason and is hospitalized who is to blame? Thinking of it along those lines I got no problem with what happened.
This is the reason why cheese is so much better in Europe. I'll give you a hint - they don't pasteurize it. America loves it's processed/subsidized/lobbyist industries. Cellulose additives to dairy products? Sure. Cotton in salad dressing? Sure. Orange juice deoxygenated and stripped of flavor then flavor derived from oranges re-added to the juice (it's how Tropicana et al make their stuff)? Sure.
Sigh, and CA is supposed to be full of "liberal hippies". I still can't find cheese worth a damn here.
Aren't they phasing out the food pyramid anyway because its known to be outdated and wrong in many respects (and hilariously not easy enough to understand). I forget what the new shape or w/e is going to be but they are defiantly working on updating it.
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.
people don't go out and buy raw milk on a whim. raw milk, where i'm from, is about $15 a gallon. people who buy it know what raw milk is and have done their research on it to justify the price of purchasing it.
They do research like the people who don't vaccinate their kids do research.
I wish those kind of people wouldn't have been vaccinated T_T
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
On August 06 2011 15:14 theBizness wrote: This is the reason why cheese is so much better in Europe. I'll give you a hint - they don't pasteurize it. America loves it's processed/subsidized/lobbyist industries. Cellulose additives to dairy products? Sure. Cotton in salad dressing? Sure. Orange juice deoxygenated and stripped of flavor then flavor derived from oranges re-added to the juice (it's how Tropicana et al make their stuff)? Sure.
Sigh, and CA is supposed to be full of "liberal hippies". I still can't find cheese worth a damn here.
You can make cheese from unpasteurized milk as long as you store it at the right temperature and hold it for 60+ days to age. That's not dangerous.
Milk is a different story, raw milk is considered a safety hazard because of all the deaths it has caused. It still kills people every couple of years, and makes thousands of others sick.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
So cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin should be legal, and selling them should be too? Sure, it's your body, but it's the government's responsibility to keep its people safe, and selling food that hasn't been regulated by the FDA and such is not safe (not necessarily unsafe, but one cannot be sure of how safe it is).
Guess what, if you wanted coke and meth, you could get it. If some mindless crackhead can score it daily, so can you.
The point is less govt intervention, more freedom. Oh, you know, the principles upon which this country was founded. You honestly believe, that in the 21st century, if substances like marijuana were made legal, its usage would RISE?
I want to live in a country where if I wanted raw humane milk, I could get it from farmer John down the block. Every year new laws are being put in place widely influenced by big agro. That's not the road I'd want to continue down.
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.
Is 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....
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.
Is 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.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
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.
Is 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?
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.
Is 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?
The government is actively trying to reduce deaths from all of those things for the good of the public. A lot of effort is put into anti-drunk-driving campaigns, discouraging smoking, and giving people information about eating well and exercising.
Are you saying that people die from lots of stuff so the government shouldn't bother intervening?
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.
Is 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?
The government is actively trying to reduce deaths from all of those things for the good of the public. A lot of effort is put into anti-drunk-driving campaigns, discouraging smoking, and giving people information about eating well and exercising.
Are you saying that people die from lots of stuff so the government shouldn't bother intervening?
But all that effort is fundamentally different, because none of those things are outlawed. Why can't the government put a lot of effort into anti-raw milk campaigns, discouraging raw milk, and giving people information about the dangers of raw milk? Instead, they just outright ban it.
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.
Is 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?
By raiding liquor stores? Banning cigarettes? Banning driving because accidents cause deaths (way more than raw milk ever will)? Banning high fructose corn syrups? Banning pools because children drown in them?(significantly more than child-involved gun accidents) still don't get the picture huh...
On August 06 2011 15:30 DamageControL wrote: Instead of redirecting me to the Health and Fitness initiative thread, can you just tell me the information you think is so obvious?
Between 1980, the first year of the food pyramid, and 2006 diabetes rates tripled [1] and obesity rates continue to rise [2] . In 1960 13 percent of Americans were obese [3] today that number is 26 percent and climbing steadily, yet our saturated fat intake has declined to 7.8 percent [4]. So after almost 60 years of following the low fat advice we are twice as fat. It isn’t the fats that are making us fat. The amount of saturated fat in our diet is not linked with weight gain or disease. The problem is that we are consuming low fat, high carbohydrate, sugar and artificially sweetened, chemically laden, highly processed, non-nutritious foods.
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.
Is 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?
You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
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.
On August 06 2011 15:38 Jibba wrote: You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
This is a case where the raided foods were labeled raw. The consumers knowingly bought these products for this very reason.
On August 06 2011 15:38 Jibba wrote: You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
Well, at least when I grew up, we learned about the food pyramid in public school. Who is in charge of public schools? And while there is no proof that ALL Americans follow the food pyramid (I try to avoid absolutes), there is evidence that many do. Hence an increase in grain consumption and a decrease in fat consumption.
On August 06 2011 15:38 Jibba wrote: You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
This is a case where the raided foods were labeled raw. The consumers knowingly bought these products for this very reason.
FDA don't play
You don't know who he was selling to. There's just not much information available.
On August 06 2011 15:38 Jibba wrote: You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
Well, at least when I grew up, we learned about the food pyramid in public school. Who is in charge of public schools? And while there is no proof that ALL Americans follow the food pyramid (I try to avoid absolutes), there is evidence that many do. Hence an increase in grain consumption and a decrease in fat consumption.
What evidence is there that anyone follows the food pyramid? You grew up learning to brush and floss after every meal, didn't you? How many people do you know who do that?
You can't say "the food pyramid's nutritional recommendations are bad, because since it was released obesity has gone up." That's a fallacy. You can certainly show that its recommendations are poor, and I doubt it would be hard to do, but the evidence you quoted is meaningless. If you're going to argue it, give it a proper defense.
I feel a little bit of sympathy because I understand that most of these people just want to eat healthily but holy shit. The website in the OP says that there's an "all-out war" against organic foods. That's a little bit over the top, to say the least. Some dude getting his store raided isn't a war. You can go to other organic food stores, hopefully ones where the store owner follows the rules before putting unpasteurized milk in your food. Its not something to mess around with.
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.
Is 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. And also keep in mind that in most places, including California where all of this went down, local raw milk is legal. It's illegal to sell unlabeled raw milk, or raw milk that doesn't meet basic standards that minimize public risk.
Said risk, by the way, has no function. It's hard to analogize raw milk with drugs & alcohol, because raw milk is senseless by comparison. If some car manufacturers sold cars that occasionally catch on fire for no reason, it would be a matter of public risk, and open game for regulation. Same thing with mortgages: if lenders occasionally lied to unqualified consumers and banks bundled up the bad loans into investments, and ratings agencies disingenuously labeled them as AAA, it would be a matter of senseless economic risk to the public, and subject to government regulation.
Or we can cry out for unqualified "freedom" and enjoy the consequences.
On August 06 2011 15:30 DamageControL wrote: Instead of redirecting me to the Health and Fitness initiative thread, can you just tell me the information you think is so obvious?
Between 1980, the first year of the food pyramid, and 2006 diabetes rates tripled [1] and obesity rates continue to rise [2] . In 1960 13 percent of Americans were obese [3] today that number is 26 percent and climbing steadily, yet our saturated fat intake has declined to 7.8 percent [4]. So after almost 60 years of following the low fat advice we are twice as fat. It isn’t the fats that are making us fat. The amount of saturated fat in our diet is not linked with weight gain or disease. The problem is that we are consuming low fat, high carbohydrate, sugar and artificially sweetened, chemically laden, highly processed, non-nutritious foods.
That's well documented, I thought you were speaking about raw milk particularly?
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
This isn't an issue of what you can put into your body. Its a HEALTH issue. If this place was selling stuff that was not following regulations for food safety then a bunch of people died to some bacteria would you be bitching about how they didn't stop this guy? This was probably a bit of an overreaction by the law enforcement but if he was in fact ignoring the law for the production and storage of food products then its good that something was done.
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. >_>
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.
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..
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 15:09 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.
Is 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 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.
Is 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 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.
Is 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 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 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.
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 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 14:29 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.
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.
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.
I think the youtube videos are all extremely misleading. They make it seem as though they did nothing wrong.
Break the law, go to jail.
The discussion of whether or not FDA rules to protect people are good or bad is kind of silly. Did his milk have giant surgeon general's warnings saying "THIS WILL PROBABLY KILL YOU"? Then don't compare it to tobacco.
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.
It doesn't matter at all where american food producers produce their food. I can code strictly functional in C++, that isn't making C++ less of an object oriented language.
Can you give me credible sources (scientifc papers) which show that organic farming is worse? I have visited and worked on organic farms and IP (a swiss thing for inbetween) and conventional farms. Bio-Farming (thats how its called in switzerland) needs much more mechanical work, and the products often look worse because they are exposed to more animals which are not killed by chemicals. I had close looks to trees, gras and bushes on all kind of farms, and biological farms look more living (more animal movement in the soil). But yeah, I'd love to get some papers which show that swinging the chemical maul is better for the soil (includes animals living there like spiders)
Again you talk about your health at the end. Organic food production is not about your health!
What exactly organic food is and how it should be produced is different in almost every country, but the general idea originating arround 1910/1920 is still the same. I don't know about america but in switzerland and austria (the origins of bio-food) , bio-farms are strictly controlled (I expirienced it myself) thats why I trust organic food in those countrys but not really in others.
Maybe you should read here about "Taste" and "Nutritional Value" so you can see for yourself that its a myth (or whatever you call that) implanted in the public mind by idiotic cooking shows and such, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Consumer_safety
On August 06 2011 17:12 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Maybe you should read here about "Taste" and "Nutritional Value" so you can see for yourself that its a myth (or whatever you call that) implanted in the public mind by idiotic cooking shows and such, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Consumer_safety
Real organic meat tastes amazing compared to the spongy meat typically sold in supermarkets.
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.
i have to respond to this terrible troll response. i can't JLIG
it's why the larger producer of organic foods in america grows most of it in china right!
most of the organic mass produced food in the western united states comes from south and central california. very few things come from oregon and washington as well. i dont know about the east coast because i dont deal with stuff from there so i cant comment on their situation with organic food stuffs (where they get it from). there are seasonal things that come from south/central america, new zealand, isreal, holland, but nothing i've ever seen that was labeled as organic has come from china.
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.
so like, composting the waste of the current years crop, mixing in manure from cows and letting it set is worse than spraying chemicals so the run off can go into streams and water sources? but yes, there are organic chemicals, but them being organic means they weren't synthesized in labs. it means they are mixtures of things found naturally.. in nature. more than likely these farms use lady bugs, spiders, praying mantis, snails etc. to control the insects that damage crops. worms don't do shit to organic crops other than help aerate the soil
If you didn't know organic doesn't mean pesticide free just means the pesticide is organic too!
nope. for something to have that label of "organic" the soil it was grown in has to be chemical free for 7 years. the crops cannot be sprayed with pesticides, herbicides, cannot have synthetic fertilizers used. once any of those are used the product has to be labeled as such. if they use herbicides it's no longer organic, but they can say it's pesticide free. conventional produce uses whatever they can use to make the product look nice, have no bugs. but that cost is chemicals, herbicides, toxic runoff into the water, and it makes the soil unusable after years of this type of use.
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.
On August 06 2011 17:12 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Maybe you should read here about "Taste" and "Nutritional Value" so you can see for yourself that its a myth (or whatever you call that) implanted in the public mind by idiotic cooking shows and such, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Consumer_safety
Real organic meat tastes amazing compared to the spongy meat typically sold in supermarkets.
thats because super market meat is the cheapest cuts possible. Get a quality steak from a butcher and it will be better and cost less.
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 fille
What, pesticides and organic food? If pesticides are used it isn't organic.
how do people not know the definition of what a pesticide is... pesticide doesn't mean chemical made in lab. And farming without pesticides is throwing away like 10% of your crop which is idiotic. http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~lhom/organictext.html You have to understand im coming from the US defined version of organic what it takes to label a piece of food organic which doesn't take alot.
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.
On August 06 2011 17:12 WhuazGoodJaggah wrote: Maybe you should read here about "Taste" and "Nutritional Value" so you can see for yourself that its a myth (or whatever you call that) implanted in the public mind by idiotic cooking shows and such, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food#Consumer_safety
Real organic meat tastes amazing compared to the spongy meat typically sold in supermarkets.
thats because super market meat is the cheapest cuts possible. Get a quality steak from a butcher and it will be better and cost less.
Didn't Penn and Teller do some tests with this? Where they broke a banana in two and told random tasters that one end was organic, and the other wasn't. Its all in the mind. Organic has never tasted better than non-organic, but that was never the point of it either.
edit: Actually, in some cases it can taste better. Just like in some cases, non organic food can taste better than another brand of non organic food..
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.
I'm not saying "organic" food is inherently more or less safe than "non-organic," but organic foods simply remove the (very minimal) threat of food gone bad thanks to synthetic chemicals being used on them. That's all. Organic food just lessens one particular type of risk.
conventional produce uses whatever they can use to make the product look nice, have no bugs. but that cost is chemicals, herbicides, toxic runoff into the water, and it makes the soil unusable after years of this type of use.
which is simply not true under good management .__.
part of the reason why some people dislike organic food so much is that organic food enthusiasts cannot stop their personal enthusiasm from turning into a moral crusade that it simply is not. non-organic farming methods do not destroy the soil or the environment in general if used properly, if not then of course they are going to do damage.
the political aspects of the organic food movement are generally pretty hippie-dippie; organic food is better because GM food is dangerous (no, it's not) and non-organic rapes the land (no, it doesn't if you use proper methods) and organic food isn't under the control of those eeeeeval corporations. less crusade and more food pls
As for Rawesome foods, the fiscal conservative / libertarian part of me says what the fuck is the government doing bothering these people and spending tax dollars to do it on a year-long undercover investigation that God knows how much it cost.
Then the law and order part of me says, Yeah but the police didn't go after them because they don't like people eating what they want, Rawesome Foods decided to get in a pissing match with the government and the government can't just allow people to get into and win pissing contests with it whenever they want, people would start doing it with laws more important than the ones about getting certification from the State as an organic foods distributor or whatever certification/registration/licensing the dispute was about.
On August 06 2011 17:40 3clipse wrote: 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.
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.
I think there should be a law agasint free speech... some people just dont know what they are talking about sometimes. I understand they are mad about government raiding but honestly... if they are breaking a law, sorry, its raid time.
Honestly I think it's a stupid waste of time by the government but then again all of the protesting is just as retarded. Some Organic hippy food store was raided for violating regulations In the videos they had been raided before probably for the same reason so it's not like they didn't have warning they probably had tons.
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.
WHAT??
Food without any pesticides and fertelizers are 100% healthier and tastier! No discussion there!
About this case, if he was selling this stuff and if they were not 100% biological or was produced wrong(higienic safety) maybe they were right! If it was against Biological to inforce monsanto grown shit food then you americans are fucked big time!
Now, I don't know the whole story behind this, so I can only make assumptions and guesses to fill in the blanks. If the owner was notified of his 'illegal' activies before, and refused to comply, thus leading to a raid like this, I can understand that. No matter what you do, you have to comply to the rules and regulations. Yeah, it might seem like a bunch of red tape and unnecessary meddling by the government, but they are there for a reason, and no-one should think they're exempt. Still, raiding an organic food farm with the full force of FDA, CDC, and LAPD (+SWAT?) seems like an overreaction, unless they had reliable intel that there was more to it to this farm & owner.
Now if the owner was NOT given any prior notice whatsoever, then I have a big problem with what they did. Not only is it an overreaction of epic proportions, but a huge waste of money. Unless they had claims that food from the farm was making people sick, or secretly growing some weed, or engineering some biochemical WMDs made out of cheese, I cannot understand why they would take action on a scale like this. I guess we'll have to wait to hear to whole story.
Food without any pesticides and fertelizers are 100% healthier and tastier! No discussion there!
No, they aren't, and not even organic food advocacy groups will go so far as to say this.
No definitive study or series of studies has been done on whether organic is healthier than non-organic (much less "100%" or 2x as healthy), and tastier is a matter of subjective opinion from one human to the next. I suppose scientifically you could show Food X activated more taste buds than Food Y or something but that isn't tastier in the sense you mean it.
Food without any pesticides and fertelizers are 100% healthier and tastier! No discussion there!
No, they aren't, and not even organic food advocacy groups will go so far as to say this.
No definitive study or series of studies has been done on whether organic is healthier than non-organic (much less "100%" or 2x as healthy), and tastier is a matter of subjective opinion from one human to the next. I suppose scientifically you could show Food X activated more taste buds than Food Y or something but that isn't tastier in the sense you mean it.
A lack of a "definitive study" doesn't mean it's unreasonable to assume they are more healthy. I'm not even sure I trust your assertion that such studies don't exist.
Anyway, that meat from animals feeding on grass contains a lot more omega 3 fatty acids and milk from grass fed cows also contains more omega 3's, so we *should* assume they are more healthy. (Yes there are studies, no I won't search for you. They are easy enough to find)
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.
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.
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. [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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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 14:29 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.
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.
Funny how less people died in fukushima than to a bacteria in organic cucumbers.
Pasteurization is used to stop things like this. I do realize that they're talking about cucumbers and not milk, but there could easily be an outbreak of a disease because of non-pasteurized milk.
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.
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.
At first this seems like a crazy law, but I could see unpasteurized milk as being much more likely to spread disease and cause an outbreak. No one should care if just the people consuming the raw milk get sick because of their choice, but a whole outbreak starting from something like this would affect many more people who never chose to consume this milk.
People have been saying some different things about what "organic" actually means, sometimes with questionable sources. So I did a little digging to find out more about what specifically the word means (in the US). Organic foods must be certified through the National Organic Program, run by the USDA, which dictates which agricultural and handling practices may be used. It contains no health and safety requirements, because those are the domain of the FDA. The USDA has posted some fact sheets about organic food certification, including the following: 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).
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..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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'.
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.
I don't think it's illegal to drink gasoline, and that is arguably worse for you than organic milk.
On August 06 2011 17:40 3clipse wrote: 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.
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 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?
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.
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.
Excessive force might be excessive. Honestly, I have no issue with them going in and talking to the guy, or even pulling him from business because he didn't comply with federal food regulations, but, they didn't need to do it so forcibly or waste so many resources. At the same time, the loss of a business should be punishment enough for this guy's crimes.
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'.
In the case of raw milk sales, they had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting public health--raw milk may or may not be mildly more dangerous than its pasteurized cousin, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a threat to public health. Even if it were, free societies recognize that citizens have the right to do things that are not good for their health, even things that you and I might consider foolish. If you want to sit at home and drink unpasteurized orange juice and eat raw, unpasteurized eggs, that is your natural right. We have fallen so far from the Jeffersonian ideal that we're now left to debate not whether "storing eggs at an improper temperature" should be a felony, but whether it should be applied in Rawesome's case. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the path the U.S. has been on for more than a century now.
The government passing any law curtailing individual rights is by definition an imposition on everyone's freedom. Further, anyone who believes that the government does things for its citizens' benefit has a poor understanding of power and how it is utilized & maintained, even under the best circumstances and with the best of initial intentions. When the state acts, its citizens should be always be asking qui bono.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
The police raided an organic raw milk store. Therefore organic raw milk must be unsafe.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined.
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'.
In the case of raw milk sales, they had nothing whatsoever to do with protecting public health--raw milk may or may not be mildly more dangerous than its pasteurized cousin, but it is by no stretch of the imagination a threat to public health. Even if it were, free societies recognize that citizens have the right to do things that are not good for their health, even things that you and I might consider foolish. If you want to sit at home and drink unpasteurized orange juice and eat raw, unpasteurized eggs, that is your natural right. We have fallen so far from the Jeffersonian ideal that we're now left to debate not whether "storing eggs at an improper temperature" should be a felony, but whether it should be applied in Rawesome's case. It's a sad state of affairs, but it's the path the U.S. has been on for more than a century now.
The government passing any law curtailing individual rights is by definition an imposition on everyone's freedom. Further, anyone who believes that the government does things for its citizens' benefit has a poor understanding of power and how it is utilized & maintained, even under the best circumstances and with the best of initial intentions. When the state acts, its citizens should be always be asking qui bono.
Right now, raw milk might or might not be more dangerous then the pasteurized version, but that argument has only become true in recent years. Only when you can assure a clean milking environment, a safe, cooled method of transportation, etc, you can safely sell raw milk. That simply wasn't achievable 40 years ago. At that point, severely limiting raw milk sales and assuring very basic safety precautions (which is what pasteurization is), was benificial as a whole to society. Safety assurances are demanded on everything from cars to microwaves to handguns, none of them limit your freedom of choice, all they do is regulate reasonable expectations from consumers (buying food from a supermarket shouldn't normally get me sick).
Furthermore, you're free to go to the store, buy eggs, leave them in your living room and eat them a week or 3 later. What you're not allowed to do is buy eggs, store them in a van in a parking lot somewhere for several weeks, and then sell them. At that point you're only making people sick and it should be a felony to do so.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
The police raided an organic raw milk store. Therefore organic raw milk must be unsafe.
Is there anything wrong with this logic?
I'm sure both the FDA and CDC are heavily invested in agribusiness, and have too much to lose by letting us believe that raw milk is healthy.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined.
oh the threat IS real. raw organic milk is extremely difficult to produce on a large national scale that the corporations operate at.
Meanwhile sales of raw milk in 2010 increased 25% while sales of pasteurized milk declined 3% in California. If we assume that the loss of pasteurized sales is directly related to organic sales this means that the organic raw milk market now accounts for up to 12% of the total milk consumed, and if the rate continues, pasteurized milk sales will decline by 5% next year.
On August 07 2011 02:28 HunterX11 wrote: A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined.
We've been pasteurizing milk and killing pathogens for 200 years. Hard to believe big argibuisness has been suppressing the people like this for so long. THE MAN'S PUTTING YOU DOWN MAN...! right.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
The police raided an organic raw milk store. Therefore organic raw milk must be unsafe.
Is there anything wrong with this logic?
I'm sure both the FDA and CDC are heavily invested in agribusiness, and have too much to lose by letting us believe that raw milk is healthy.
PS The CDC doesn't care about agribusiness.
?? the FDA is demonstrably in the pocket of corporations. Its not even controversial. Just look at GM food approval vis-a-vis the plethora of animal studies that show (among other things) immune system dysfunction, kidney problems, gastrointestinal disease, reproductive problems...
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe.
But this is another argument for another thread.
You do know the act calls for databases to be made upon request of court subpoena in order to track down child pornographers. not to track history in order to prevent children from seeing pornography.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe.
But this is another argument for another thread.
You do know the act calls for databases to be made upon request of court subpoena in order to track down child pornographers. not to track history in order to prevent children from seeing pornography.
I think that's a very naive view of something that would really just be another link in the chain of devolution of our freedoms.
wasn't gonna bring that up just pointed out that he knows nothing of the act by the way he titled it only made that obvious. So i listed the intent of the act if it overreaches from that i'm not to say.
On August 07 2011 02:28 HunterX11 wrote: A large part of laws in general, yes, but pretty much all laws regarding agriculture are to protect big agribusiness from any possible threat to their profits, real or imagined.
We've been pasteurizing milk and killing pathogens for 200 years. Hard to believe big argibuisness has been suppressing the people like this for so long. THE MAN'S PUTTING YOU DOWN MAN...! right.
Putting you down from your right to have constant diarrhea! Next thing you know the man is not gonna let me drink from nature water!
is a mistaken impression that everyone gets from cop shows. First off if you aren't in the US this doesn't apply at all. And in the USA you need to be read your miranda rights before the cops interrogate you, NOT at the time of arrest. But since every cop show, everywhere, shows the "you have the right to..." while banging the guys head against the cop car, its what we think is the case.
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!
A large part of the law is to protect some idiots and their children from idiots like you.
Good thing the government is debating over making the "keeping children safe from pornography act by keeping track of our internet history" a law is going to keep not only me, but my children safe.
But this is another argument for another thread.
You do know the act calls for databases to be made upon request of court subpoena in order to track down child pornographers. not to track history in order to prevent children from seeing pornography.
I think that's a very naive view of something that would really just be another link in the chain of devolution of our freedoms.
I don't get where you take the story and somehow interpret a government war on organic food. It seems more like a government war on people that don't follow the law...
On August 07 2011 02:46 andrewlt wrote: People are confusing organic and pasteurized, it seems.
And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists.
Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'. + Show Spoiler +
First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals.
Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community.
A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with.
Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'. You do this implicitly, without stating it outright, through your usage of terms.
When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against any government action at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority, and who share characteristics with terrorists.
You are basically normalizing the status quo, eliminating the possiblity of dissent, and basically obfuscating the argument here and shitting up the thread in general.
Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away.
tldr; basically saying that usage of terms like this is a way of normalizing the status quo and marginalizing dissent.
On August 07 2011 02:53 caradoc wrote: Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'.
First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals.
Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community.
A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with.
Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'.
When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against the government at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority.
You are basically normalizing the status quo.
Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away.
This argument has gone from food to government to Islamic terrorism to Fox News.
On August 07 2011 02:46 andrewlt wrote: People are confusing organic and pasteurized, it seems.
And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists.
Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'.
First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals.
Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community.
A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with.
Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'. You do this implicitly, without stating it outright, through your usage of terms.
When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against any government action at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority.
You are basically normalizing the status quo.
Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away.
There was me that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie Boy and Dim. And we sat in the Rawsome Milk Bar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Rawsome Milk Bar sold milk plus - milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old Ultra-Violence.
On August 07 2011 02:53 caradoc wrote: Lets deconstruct this term of yours 'same bunch of anti-government extremists'.
First of all, your use of the term 'same bunch' presupposes a small closed set of individuals.
Secondly, a simple google search will show that usage of 'anti-government extremists' accounts for over 10% of the total usage of 'anti-government'-- this implies that the term is not only a set expression, but there is some element of equating 'anti-government' in general with extremism. This association is amplified by your usage of the term to denote a small set of individuals within the community.
A simple google search of extremism shows a strong connotation with islamic terrorism. Currently a very bad thing to be labeled as or associated with.
Essentially first you are saying that to be against a specific government action means that you are against 'the government' and also that to be against the government is to be 'an extremist'.
When paired with your usage of the term 'small group' -- you are marginalizing any dissent against the government at all by implying that dissent is only by a small group who do not, by implication, share the views of the majority.
You are basically normalizing the status quo.
Do you work for Fox news or something? fuck. go away.
This argument has gone from food to government to Islamic terrorism to Fox News.
Seriously? Fuck.
spoilered. I'm just saying he's marginalizing dissent.
On August 07 2011 02:59 Playguuu wrote: There was me that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie Boy and Dim. And we sat in the Rawsome Milk Bar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Rawsome Milk Bar sold milk plus - milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old Ultra-Violence.
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.
This is pretty much it. It's not so much the government forbidding organic food as it is the government ensuring organic fold that is sold meets certain regulations
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.
This is pretty much it. It's not so much the government forbidding organic food as it is the government ensuring organic fold that is sold meets certain regulations
GM-canola wasn't tested for humans outside of monsanto's internal studies, and a plethora of animal studies show numerous health problems, yet it was fasttracked for FDA approval.
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.
This is pretty much it. It's not so much the government forbidding organic food as it is the government ensuring organic fold that is sold meets certain regulations
GM-canola wasn't tested for humans outside of monsanto's internal studies, and a plethora of animal studies show numerous health problems, yet it was fasttracked for FDA approval.
Just wanted to post in this thread after reading through it, every single one of your posts is so single minded and condescending it's ridiculous, are you even looking for discussion? or just fishing for debate.
And it seems to me that posts like these on TL are made by the same bunch of anti-government extremists.
That prompted a tirade of nonsensical accusations? Jesus Christ get some thicker skin.
JUST SAYIN'.
not attacking the person per se, though I guess I could have left the fox news comment out. To me I was more talking about the cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated.
In that sense, it wasn't an accusation at all, it was merely pointing out the ability for him to make that comment without the comment itself being seen as absolutely ridiculous and unwarranted. The fact that his comment made some sense in the context that it is, points to deeper cultural/conceptual notions that people should think about.
On August 07 2011 03:13 caradoc wrote: not attacking the person per se, though I suppose I could have left the fox news comment out. I suppose I was more talking about the cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated.
I suppose I was more talking about your cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated.
Don't you find this even slightly ironic? (probably using that word wrong)
On August 07 2011 03:13 caradoc wrote: not attacking the person per se, though I suppose I could have left the fox news comment out. I suppose I was more talking about the cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated.
I suppose I was more talking about your cultural tendency to normalize the marginalization of specific viewpoints by tracing the connotations that certain words have with concepts that superficially seem to be unrelated.
Don't you find this even slightly ironic? (probably using that word wrong)
I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
You can bet the reason this is getting raided is because of dairy/agra lobbies to state and federal representatives. It's just sickening how horrendous this country and the world at large is becoming.
This has nothing to do with regulating individual consumer choice. It has to do with regulating a non-compliant business. If we had a totally free food market, sickness would run even more rampant. Look back at the 19th century: prior to the FDA regulation of food in the United States, cost-cutting, harmful adulterants ran rampant in food. And just because this is a co-op/small natural foods grocer doesn't make them inherently better or more ethical than a large corporation.
The analogy to cigarettes and alcohol doesn't stand up. We don't consume those things for nourishment in the traditional sense. And they are accompanied with warning labels.
The article states that this is not a random raid, but rather a project that has been in the works since 2005.
TL;DR Pure individualism/unadulterated choice in the free market of food is not only a myth, but it would be undesirable and horrific and corporations (and small co-ops) would have no incentive to concern themselves with the public health. Regulation is not ideal, but it beats anarchy when it comes to food.
On August 06 2011 14:49 Ingenol wrote: This is disgusting. The government has no business telling anyone what they can or cannot put in or do to their bodies, or to tell anyone what they can or cannot sell to someone. It's YOUR body and you need to be responsible for it.
So cocaine, methamphetamine, and heroin should be legal, and selling them should be too? Sure, it's your body, but it's the government's responsibility to keep its people safe, and selling food that hasn't been regulated by the FDA and such is not safe (not necessarily unsafe, but one cannot be sure of how safe it is).
Guess what, if you wanted coke and meth, you could get it. If some mindless crackhead can score it daily, so can you.
The point is less govt intervention, more freedom. Oh, you know, the principles upon which this country was founded. You honestly believe, that in the 21st century, if substances like marijuana were made legal, its usage would RISE?
I want to live in a country where if I wanted raw humane milk, I could get it from farmer John down the block. Every year new laws are being put in place widely influenced by big agro. That's not the road I'd want to continue down.
No fucking shit you can get drugs, where anywhere did I say someone couldn't? You're not even responding to what I said, marijuana's usage rising has absolutely nothing to do what I said. Honestly your post is making my brain hurt, every time I read it I start getting a fucking headache.
The OP seems to use "organic milk" and "raw milk" interchangeably. Raw milk gives you tuberculosis. Of course it should not be sold to anyone. The law is fine.
If people were allowed to sell unpasteurized milk, the consumers would get tuberculosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever, etc. These are life-threatening illnesses. Some of them are contagious, so you are posing a risk to others as well.
Pasteurization takes away some of the nutritional content of the milk, but removes the deadly diseases. This is literally a life-and-death issue, and the law is perfectly justified.
Organic milk is a different issue entirely, whether it's regular or organic milk it's still pasteurized before being sold.
Most of the people in those videos are uneducated hippies, that seriously believes anything is good, when it's not altered or modified. And everything that is, kills you or makes you grown a third arm. Science.. how does it work?
Also; Who in the living hell sells organic food or products in general, before reading what's legal and what's not. Especially with everyday groceries.
Shop-owner should've seen it coming.
That being said, a raid is quiet unnecessary, and they should have told/warned the owners before taking it to such measures. They're overreacting.
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
I think the law against selling poisonous milk is a good one. I personally don't check my milk to make sure it isn't poisonous every time I buy, I rely on government regulations to keep the quality of my milk good and safe.
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.
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:
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!
That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing.
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.
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:
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!
That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing.
It's a health hazard to the public. One hippie stuffing his face with this raw milk and he's going to be infecting dozens of people with whatever he ends up with.
If only the consumer of this stuff ended up fucked i wouldn't care but ill be damned if people get to turn themselves into walking epidemics because they aren't 100% in the head and think normal food is out to kill you.
The idea of freedom isn't to get to a point where we can re-introduce diseases that we have otherwise pretty much killed off.
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.
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:
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!
That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing.
already been explained in the thread they don't ban you from eating and giving yourself weeks of non solid bowel movements, they ban you from selling that to other people. And the government prevents people from buying certain things like flame throwers or lead filled baby products on a regular basis
Ah the whole "Organic food is awesome" and "Conventional food is super bad" discussion. Considering that in the past 50 years, where people have been mainly eating conventional food, the average life span and generall health increased, just shows how unhealthy those conventional foods are.
Also the term organic food is SO wrong, unless you can find a apple that is made in a factory without any kind of involvment of trees.
As a lot of people said before, raw milk can be dangerous. Thus it must be tested. Even if nothing happened, the owner was risking seriously dangerous sicknesses of the people that are consuming the raw milk. Hence he must be punished.
The comparison to cigarettes is something that is just so far fetched it is not even funny. You don't need cigarettes, if you want to smoke, go ahead and get cancer. No one doubts that not even the tobacco insdustry. In case of food the gouvernment should enforce laws that ensure that food that is sold does not have the possibility to kill you.
And the studys showing that GM crops are showing serious health risks for animals, are sometimes not even accepted scientific studies and not published in a scientific journal. This is done, because these studies are not scientific. The best example i have heard was a scientist who researched the effects of GM potatoes on rats. He feed the control rats, their standardized food. The GM rats were fed GM potatoes and thats it. Strangely the GM rats had health issues.
If you want to have a real discussion about a scientific issue, which the quality of food is, you need to use science not opinions. And not every study is scientific, even if it is done by scientists.
I find it insane how hard they'll regulate homegrown "illegal" food operations under the guise that they're not safe or "approved" by the FDA; when in reality the FDA barely even regulates the food that makes into grocery stores.
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.
Sadly, most people aren't fully educated on our nation's origins and thus don't fully respect the principles upon which it was founded.
It's threads like these that make me firmly believe the viewership of TL comprises of mostly teenagers, because I can model their thought processes based on their posts and compare it to when I was that age.
The food safety industry is a joke. Ive worked there and what they do is just pure paper work, its downsourcing the actual job into the same private companies. All one need do is forge some of the papers and there you go, nothing stopping from selling whatever food you want. Might be cheaper than regulatory compliance as well.
Raw milk is dangerous to others not only yourself as if you have something from it, it can spread. This is something everyone preaching "Let people live how they please" are forgetting. If it was -only- harmful to the person drinking it, you would be right it is the choice of that person and they deserve to be able to make that choice.
However the moment it could hurt others yes regulation is needed and needs to be enforced, it's a matter of public safety at that point. In short saying "freedom" doesn't give you the freedom to hurt others around you.
I find it mind boggling that no one has brought this up by this point.
Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
On August 07 2011 03:54 jmack wrote: I find it insane how hard they'll regulate homegrown "illegal" food operations under the guise that they're not safe or "approved" by the FDA; when in reality the FDA barely even regulates the food that makes into grocery stores.
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
It's quite a dichotomy.
PS: in the EU we have lots of cheeses made of raw milk. You can find them in any decent supermarket and we're not dying left and right from tuberculosis
[ That doesn't mean the government should ban you from eating the food, just informing you that it may be dangerous and shutting down any false advertizing.
You people make no sense. The food is inherently dangerous with an extremely high risk for contamination, AND it has demonstrated time and time again that it will poison people and/or kill them whenever people are exposed.
Yet you argue the government should allow it on the market?
You say no ban, just make sure everyone is informed about the risks? Ahem, do you expect everyone to read the fine print on every food item about what "may" be dangerous? Then do you expect them to go see ok, this food has an X% probability of killing me, but I will gamble on it any way? and then repeat this for every food item?
How about we just ban dangerous foods and try our best to make sure that everything we can get our hands on is safe? Rather than put dangerous things on the shelves and risk having people die.
Also, according to the article, this isn't even about organic or raw milk being illegal (it's not in manufactured dairy products), this is about people running blatant holes around the laws governing milk, and after showing no intention to comply, they were shut down as they should be.
On August 07 2011 04:10 Traeon wrote:
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
Drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year, what? Name me a drug that has FDA approval that has directly killed 100,000 people.
On August 07 2011 03:54 jmack wrote: I find it insane how hard they'll regulate homegrown "illegal" food operations under the guise that they're not safe or "approved" by the FDA; when in reality the FDA barely even regulates the food that makes into grocery stores.
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
It's quite a dichotomy.
PS: in the EU we have lots of cheeses made of raw milk. You can find them in any decent supermarket and we're not dying left and right from tuberculosis
Cheese made of raw milk is completely different from raw milk. It is legal, because if you age it for at least 60 days, the pathogenic bacteria get crowded out by safe bacteria and die off, making it safe. Raw milk cheese was declared safe because of scientific studies showing that proper aging makes them safe. However, drinking raw milk provides no safety mechanism to kill pathogenic bacteria, which is why it's not safe.
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.
I'd want to point out that the argument for the OP is also a proxy for other invasive laws in the country. I just recently bought a Harley from Florida and had it shipped to California. Guess what, can't drive it here because it doesn't have a CA-only emissions canister. Can't I just buy one and put it on? DMV doesn't allow it even though it would pass the emissions test. Called up the dealer and they said it's because CA is broke and wants money from the dealers and registrants. Had to sell the bike out of state only and buy a new one from a CA dealer. Example 2: The staircase to my house had to be inspected because of a corner in the ceiling was about 2 inches too short. Guess what, $8000 to get it to comply. Can't walk my dog in any of the public parks in my neighborhood. Decade after decade, laws are piled on, bogging the country down under dense regulation. I can't wait to see what kind of a country the U.S. will be in 50 years.
On August 07 2011 02:59 Playguuu wrote: There was me that is Alex, and my three droogs, that is Pete, Georgie Boy and Dim. And we sat in the Rawsome Milk Bar trying to make up our rassoodocks what to do with the evening. The Rawsome Milk Bar sold milk plus - milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old Ultra-Violence.
(I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
On August 06 2011 15:14 theBizness wrote: This is the reason why cheese is so much better in Europe. I'll give you a hint - they don't pasteurize it. America loves it's processed/subsidized/lobbyist industries. Cellulose additives to dairy products? Sure. Cotton in salad dressing? Sure. Orange juice deoxygenated and stripped of flavor then flavor derived from oranges re-added to the juice (it's how Tropicana et al make their stuff)? Sure.
Sigh, and CA is supposed to be full of "liberal hippies". I still can't find cheese worth a damn here.
You can make cheese from unpasteurized milk as long as you store it at the right temperature and hold it for 60+ days to age. That's not dangerous.
Milk is a different story, raw milk is considered a safety hazard because of all the deaths it has caused. It still kills people every couple of years, and makes thousands of others sick.
Eating unpasteurized cheese is considered a risk. Unpasteurized milk is not really dangerous if you keep it correctly (and throw it a way after 2-3 days. And do not give it to people with type 1 diabetes or children.)
Also most cheeses in EU are from pasteurized milk. This includes most goat and moldy cheeses as well.
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.
Sadly, most people aren't fully educated on our nation's origins and thus don't fully respect the principles upon which it was founded.
It's threads like these that make me firmly believe the viewership of TL comprises of mostly teenagers, because I can model their thought processes based on their posts and compare it to when I was that age.
It is not like these laws are baseless. Reminds of the melamine scandal in china were it was found in milk hundreds of children got sick. People were pissed of yet now people think it is ok to sell potentially lethal milk in the black market is a right?
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.
Sadly, most people aren't fully educated on our nation's origins and thus don't fully respect the principles upon which it was founded.
It's threads like these that make me firmly believe the viewership of TL comprises of mostly teenagers, because I can model their thought processes based on their posts and compare it to when I was that age.
story from my village. one day young tree say to him father "father why do you stay in village? the world is for tree, is it not?"
to the young tree, father reply, "the world is for tree, it is true, but the roots which nourish tree and the bark that protect tree make it harder to move. so we must move slow"
"that is dumb", ambition sapling say, "i will be free. root will not hold me, i will find my own nourishment, bark will not restrain me for i am young and strong" this he say for all to hear.
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
Drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year, what? Name me a drug that has FDA approval that has directly killed 100,000 people.
We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs
ADR = adverse drug reaction. That is, the drug having an unexpected harmful side effect. We're not talking about toddlers swallowing some pills or elderly not taking their meds properly. We're talking about people being cured by doctors and nurses with prescription drugs that were approved as safe by the FDA.
But don't you understand it is people's right to drink potentially dangerous beverages which can also put those around them at risk for no other reason than to stick it to the man...
I have tried raw milk and I while I understand that some people think it tastes better, the thought that I am drinking something that undoubtedly has cow/farmer feces in it spoiled any liking I had for it. Beyond that the taste didn't seem better to me.
On August 07 2011 04:31 NET wrote: (I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
Great post.
Also, what a bunch of obnoxious people in OP's youtube clips.
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
You have no right to talk.
haha, speaking of marginalizing dissent. =) Essentially that was my point, and your responses are precisely in line with his original response, which further emphasizes it.
I see that you take issue with my post. That's fabulous. I would be more than happy to respond to a sensible critique of it, or even a request for clarification. I urge you to make such a reply in the near future so that we can contribute to the overall quality of this thread, provided it is on topic, as I believe that we are dangerously close to being off on a tangent, and we don't want to derail this thread.
On topic:
I'm also surprised that so few people have pointed out that raw milk is pretty commonplace in Europe.
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
Drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year, what? Name me a drug that has FDA approval that has directly killed 100,000 people.
We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs
ADR = adverse drug reaction. That is, the drug having an unexpected harmful side effect. We're not talking about toddlers swallowing some pills or elderly not taking their meds properly. We're talking about people being cured by doctors and nurses with prescription drugs that were approved as safe by the FDA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_drug_reaction It's a quite broad term it includes people getting heart attack like events from popping penis pills and often drugs interact with other drugs something companies can't really test for too much until a doctor subscribes something that doesn't paly well with another. Yup bad drugs bad! dam those drugs that let the avg life expediency to be 78
On August 07 2011 04:31 NET wrote: (I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
it should be mentioned that the increasing occurrence of listeriosis poisonings is precisely one of the reasons that people are turning increasingly to small scale, local organic food (of which organic raw milk is an example). Industrial food production in and of itself guarantees neither health nor safety.
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.
Sadly, most people aren't fully educated on our nation's origins and thus don't fully respect the principles upon which it was founded.
It's threads like these that make me firmly believe the viewership of TL comprises of mostly teenagers, because I can model their thought processes based on their posts and compare it to when I was that age.
story from my village. one day young tree say to him father "father why do you stay in village? the world is for tree, is it not?"
to the young tree, father reply, "the world is for tree, it is true, but the roots which nourish tree and the bark that protect tree make it harder to move. so we must move slow"
"that is dumb", ambition sapling say, "i will be free. root will not hold me, i will find my own nourishment, bark will not restrain me for i am young and strong" this he say for all to hear.
next day he die.
We've gone from raw milk to talking trees all in one thread. Congrats.
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
You have no right to talk.
haha, speaking of marginalizing dissent. =) Essentially that was my point, and your responses are precisely in line with his original response, which further emphasizes it.
I see that you take issue with my post. That's fabulous. I would be more than happy to respond to a sensible critique of it, or even a request for clarification. I urge you to make such a reply in the near future so that we can contribute to the overall quality of this thread, provided it is on topic, as I believe that we are dangerously close to being off on a tangent, and we don't want to derail this thread.
On topic:
I'm also surprised that so few people have pointed out that raw milk is pretty commonplace in Europe.
I've never seen raw milk sold anywhere in any of the countries I have visited in Europe
French cheese is the most obvious example. There are also raw milk vending machines in France.
In Germany, theres Vorzugsmilch, which is sold everywhere.
you can get it in the UK in many farmers markets...
Not to mention that the FDA also approves drugs as safe which end up killing hundred thousand people in the US every year.
Drugs that kill hundreds of thousands of people in the US every year, what? Name me a drug that has FDA approval that has directly killed 100,000 people.
We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs
ADR = adverse drug reaction. That is, the drug having an unexpected harmful side effect. We're not talking about toddlers swallowing some pills or elderly not taking their meds properly. We're talking about people being cured by doctors and nurses with prescription drugs that were approved as safe by the FDA.
What you don't seem to understand is that people are only taking those drugs because they're sick. Drugs are not magic, they all have side effects. You only take drugs when you think the benefits outweight the side effects. Chemo causes all sorts of adverse drug reactions, but people do it to live a few months or years longer because otherwise they'd die of cancer faster.
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
You have no right to talk.
haha, speaking of marginalizing dissent. =) Essentially that was my point, and your responses are precisely in line with his original response, which further emphasizes it.
I see that you take issue with my post. That's fabulous. I would be more than happy to respond to a sensible critique of it, or even a request for clarification. I urge you to make such a reply in the near future so that we can contribute to the overall quality of this thread, provided it is on topic, as I believe that we are dangerously close to being off on a tangent, and we don't want to derail this thread.
On topic:
I'm also surprised that so few people have pointed out that raw milk is pretty commonplace in Europe.
I've never seen raw milk sold anywhere in any of the countries I have visited in Europe
French cheese is the most obvious example. There are also raw milk vending machines in France.
In Germany, theres Vorzugsmilch, which is sold everywhere.
you can get it in the UK in many farmers markets...
Guys, stop equating raw milk cheese to raw milk, they are NOT the same. If raw milk cheese is aged for >60 days, the pathogenic bacteria are dead. Raw milk is consumed without any process that can kill pathogenic bacteria.
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
You have no right to talk.
haha, speaking of marginalizing dissent. =) Essentially that was my point, and your responses are precisely in line with his original response, which further emphasizes it.
I see that you take issue with my post. That's fabulous. I would be more than happy to respond to a sensible critique of it, or even a request for clarification. I urge you to make such a reply in the near future so that we can contribute to the overall quality of this thread, provided it is on topic, as I believe that we are dangerously close to being off on a tangent, and we don't want to derail this thread.
On topic:
I'm also surprised that so few people have pointed out that raw milk is pretty commonplace in Europe.
I've never seen raw milk sold anywhere in any of the countries I have visited in Europe
French cheese is the most obvious example. There are also raw milk vending machines in France.
In Germany, theres Vorzugsmilch, which is sold everywhere.
you can get it in the UK in many farmers markets...
Guys, stop equating raw milk cheese to raw milk, they are NOT the same. If raw milk cheese is aged for >60 days, the pathogenic bacteria are dead. Raw milk is consumed without any process that can kill pathogenic bacteria.
did you read my post? I gave three examples of raw milk being sold at a wide scale in different countries in Europe, and one example of cheese, and you say my argument of raw milk being safe is invalid because cheese is safe?
On August 07 2011 04:31 NET wrote: (I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
Great post.
Also, what a bunch of obnoxious people in OP's youtube clips.
Thank you sir. As for those people, they are entitled to their own opinions, its what makes this country great. The media seems to portray their side of the story more so than the other. It has more entertainment value, so its expected.
On August 07 2011 04:55 caradoc wrote: it should be mentioned that the increasing occurrence of listeriosis poisonings is precisely one of the reasons that people are turning increasingly to small scale, local organic food (of which organic raw milk is an example). Industrial food production in and of itself guarantees neither health nor safety.
I agree with the use of small scale farms in terms of a health perspective as well as in a small business perspective. But as far as practicality and affordability, especially during these economic downturns people will opt to purchase the cheaper mass scale milk products. In terms of health, we could be doing so much more in our efforts towards the public's health and well being, but as stated before we have no money to do so, so we make due with what we have.
On August 07 2011 04:31 NET wrote: (I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
it should be mentioned that the increasing occurrence of listeriosis poisonings is precisely one of the reasons that people are turning increasingly to small scale, local organic food (of which organic raw milk is an example). Industrial food production in and of itself guarantees neither health nor safety.
Could you show me a study or some other factual evidence that proves your point?
Otherwise you are just claiming stuff and that is, not really part of a discussion, when it comes to scientific facts.
On August 06 2011 14:29 shinosai wrote: 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.
With government health care insurance, they now have a vested interest in the cost of keeping us healthy, therefore they have more say in "laying down the law" upon what they consider to be a source of higher health care costs.
I agree 100% with the OP, just as the war on drugs is stupid, this is too. Seriously, why the fuck should the government care if people want to drink raw milk? Slap a warning label on it and let people do what they want, such a violation of personal autonomy not to mention a huge waste of time and money investigating/prosecuting people like this.
On August 07 2011 04:31 NET wrote: (I am not here to quarrel with anyone, I am humbly here to just give some of my basic knowledge in order to help others understand what is going on.)
To begin with, it is not an attack on organic food, its an attack on illegal vendors selling potentially hazardous foods.
Without oversight of that illegal vendor, how do consumers know if the proper measurements were taken to properly transport the product. How do we know if the milk and cheese being stored in their refrigerators is the correct temperature so that bacterial growth is at least not exponential.
Also I don't understand the fad of drinking raw milk. People assume its healthier, but scientific evidence proves otherwise. Think about it for a second. Milk is taken from a cow by a farmer for example. How do we know if his hands are clean or if they are full of either cow feces or feces of his own. That contamination spreads, from that one instance, to the entire container holding all of the milk, therefore contaminating the entire product. Raw milk will sell the product as is. (As stated before I think people are confused about the difference between organic and raw milk, its completely understandable because how many people really know and study this topic anyways?)
Pasteurization, and even better, ultra pasteurization helps kill many of the bacteria and other mircboes that are proven to be harmful to your health using heat (The only downside to using this method is that some people think it taste different(ergo worse), but that's just a matter of preference, you like to play zerg over terran because you like their style better, etc) . Lets talk Listeria monocytogenes. Here is an excerpt, but hopefully you will read the entire page: "It is one of the most virulent foodborne pathogens, with 20 to 30 percent of clinical infections resulting in death.[1] Responsible for approximately 2,500 illnesses and 500 deaths in the United States (U.S.) annually, listeriosis is the leading cause of death among foodborne bacterial pathogens, with fatality rates exceeding even Salmonella and Clostridium botulinum.[2]" Milk and milk products are some of the most common sources of listeria. I think because there is so much regulation in the food industry and that not as many outbreaks occur due to the this fact, people over time forget how dangerous raw milk truly is. In truth though, there is not enough people to check every batch of milk or every carton of eggs even in the regulated industry, so we do see cases appear every so often, which is when we hear about huge recalls on food.
You have to remember that the regulations in place are not there for your average healthy adult, but rather for you susceptible young children, your elderly, and your immunocompromised. Hopefully I helped clear a few things up, and not just add more confusing to this already controversial topic.
it should be mentioned that the increasing occurrence of listeriosis poisonings is precisely one of the reasons that people are turning increasingly to small scale, local organic food (of which organic raw milk is an example). Industrial food production in and of itself guarantees neither health nor safety.
Could you show me a study or some other factual evidence that proves your point?
Otherwise you are just claiming stuff and that is, not really part of a discussion, when it comes to scientific facts.
1000th post. I should probably feel honoured.
I don't think I need to respond to this here though as I think you're just derailing-- it is so common sense that a major motivation of people moving towards organic food is the perception that industrial food is unsafe and unsustainable, as evidenced by, for example, the fairly recent (2008) maple leaf listeria incident. If you're really interested in finding out more, you can PM me though, as I'd love to educate you if you're actually receptive and not just seeking an argument. (and I apologize in advance for my misperception of your stance if that is in fact the case)
On August 07 2011 03:18 caradoc wrote: I dont quite follow you. You just copy-pasted and edited 'your' into my post.
I think you're trying to say that I'm being hypocritical. But my position is not equivalent to his at all.
He's presumably labelling people who disagree with his viewpoint as anti-government extremists. I'm pointing out that the ability to label people as such in a sensical way in this context, where there is no real evidence of singleminded anti-government sentiment or extremism is only indicative of an environment that makes dissent difficult and normalizes the status quo.
You took the phrase "anti government extremists" and accused him of "marginalizing dissent" with a ludicrous explanation.
You have no right to talk.
haha, speaking of marginalizing dissent. =) Essentially that was my point, and your responses are precisely in line with his original response, which further emphasizes it.
I see that you take issue with my post. That's fabulous. I would be more than happy to respond to a sensible critique of it, or even a request for clarification. I urge you to make such a reply in the near future so that we can contribute to the overall quality of this thread, provided it is on topic, as I believe that we are dangerously close to being off on a tangent, and we don't want to derail this thread.
On topic:
I'm also surprised that so few people have pointed out that raw milk is pretty commonplace in Europe.
I've never seen raw milk sold anywhere in any of the countries I have visited in Europe
French cheese is the most obvious example. There are also raw milk vending machines in France.
In Germany, theres Vorzugsmilch, which is sold everywhere.
you can get it in the UK in many farmers markets...
Guys, stop equating raw milk cheese to raw milk, they are NOT the same. If raw milk cheese is aged for >60 days, the pathogenic bacteria are dead. Raw milk is consumed without any process that can kill pathogenic bacteria.
did you read my post? I gave three examples of raw milk being sold at a wide scale in different countries in Europe, and one example of cheese, and you say my argument of raw milk being safe is invalid because cheese is safe?
Not true with that "wide scale" about the "Vorzugsmilch" in Germany, though I must admit I may have overlooked what products exactly there are in the supermarkets I frequent, because I do not really look in the refrigerated milk area and always buy the ultra-high-temperature treated milk.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, calling it wide scale is a matter of definition, and it is probably true that you can get raw milk in every city in Germany, though not in supermarkets.
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!
.
They are not regulating what you can eat or drink; they are regulating what can be sold. It's the FDA's responsibility to make sure dangerous food materials aren't put on the market. If the science says these foods are dangerous then they aren't going to allow it to be sold. It is good policy.
Also, its kind of stupid to sell illegal food merchandise. What are you going to do when it harms someone? As a matter of law, you sold illegal food and you are responsible for any harm that comes from it whether you are negligent or not. Maybe it is better that the government shut them down before they harmed some litigious fool.
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!
.
They are not regulating what you can eat or drink; they are regulating what can be sold. It's the FDA's responsibility to make sure dangerous food materials aren't put on the market. If the science says these foods are dangerous then they aren't going to allow it to be sold. It is good policy.
Also, its kind of stupid to sell illegal food merchandise. What are you going to do when it harms someone? As a matter of law, you sold illegal food and you are responsible for any harm that comes from it whether you are negligent or not. Maybe it is better that the government shut them down before they harmed some litigious fool.
There's no science that would ever tell you fresh milk is bad for you.
Only reason non treated milk is regulated in some countries is because it isn't retard proof. As in if you choose to buy that sort of milk it will spoil and get your ass sick in a couple of days, if you plan on drinking it and beeing healthier then the guy drinking crap from a carton you either get drinking the same day you get it out of the cow you either boil it for an hour at which point any bacteria dies and it's going to last you maybe a week or so.
Considering the amount of time it lasts is variable this is a pretty hard thing to sell legaly since you can't put an expiration date on it for example. And that makes that guy a criminal => raid time. At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Ah the whole "Organic food is awesome" and "Conventional food is super bad" discussion. Considering that in the past 50 years, where people have been mainly eating conventional food, the average life span and generall health increased, just shows how unhealthy those conventional foods are.
How dare you point this out, conventional food is dane-jerrr-us!
A lack of a "definitive study" doesn't mean it's unreasonable to assume they are more healthy. I'm not even sure I trust your assertion that such studies don't exist.
Yes in fact in the absence of evidence it is unreasonable to assume anything.
I don't care what you trust or don't trust, your post pretty much shows you wouldn't change your mind for anything on this issue.
Anyway, that meat from animals feeding on grass contains a lot more omega 3 fatty acids and milk from grass fed cows also contains more omega 3's, so we *should* assume they are more healthy. (Yes there are studies, no I won't search for you. They are easy enough to find)
"I'm not even sure I trust" blah blah blah. By the way:
Ah the whole "Organic food is awesome" and "Conventional food is super bad" discussion. Considering that in the past 50 years, where people have been mainly eating conventional food, the average life span and generall health increased, just shows how unhealthy those conventional foods are.
How dare you point this out, conventional food is dane-jerrr-us!
I'd like to see him explicitly identify what was meant by 'generall health increased'.
life span is increasing, yes, but obesity, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and a slough of other food-related health disorders are way up.
I also like how 'organic' is somehow treated as the opposite of 'conventional'. When did this conceptual shift occur? Food since the dawn of time, except for the past 20-35 years has been organic.
Nothing against food that isn't organic per se, but its fairly important to be educated about where your food comes from and what goes into it.
This reminds me of a local farm making apple cider. The gov shut them down because they didn't put chemicals in it or something. They were around for 200 years and they still make it but you have to "donate" money to buy it
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
You'll find lots of people who disagree and view Omega 3 as a scam.
My personal view on all of the Omegas, not just 3s are good for your health. Its a relatively a new concept, but the medical world is slowly, but truly beginning to realize their significance. I'm no expert on the subject so here is a link that may explain some things. I got this link after watching a world renown doctor talk about it on the the Dr. Oz show, Omega 3
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
FASCISM.
You're either trolling or extremely fucking stupid...
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
FASCISM.
Well played sir. Lets start from the top.
"nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that."
This answer can actually vary. How do you know the water you are drinking doesn't contain human feces from somewhere upstream.That's asking to get an illness, and potentially life threatening depending on the circumstance. Also those nutrients are what is causing our lakes and other water sources to become eutrophic. Very sad indeed, but that is of a different subject matter.
"and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures? "
I'm not here to judge other cultures, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but it is when their beliefs can begin to threaten a child's, elderly's, or sick person's life is when we should regulate certain food products such as milk.
"the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?"
A strange argument, but I think it deals with the portraying the government as a bully, and that is completely understandable. No one wants their entire life to be controlled by the government. Its embedded in us as (US) Americans to have freedom of speech and all the other good stuff that comes with it, but when an illegal vendor, or any vendor of the sorts are selling products which potentially have the power to make people extremely sick, then I say we make sure as hell that we have some sort of regulating agency to help keep that person or business in check. Most businesses, even the beloved small business' main goal is to make profit. They will, alot of times, cut corners on simple things such as basic hygiene and proper (and perhaps more time consuming) methods in order to make a faster buck.
"i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it."
Sounds like illegal moonshining to me. Which is illegal afaik.
"FASCISM"
"Fascists promote violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[7] Fascists view conflict as a fact of life that is responsible for all human progress.[8] Fascists exalt militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[9] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents, or to overthrow a political system.[10]"Fascism.
There's no violence promotion or nationalism going on here, just preventative measures trying to ensure the overall health of the public.
Unpasteurized milk can be very dangerous specially in younger and older people. You aren't even allowed to buy it in the US for a reason. Now most people have never seen unpasteurized milk for that reason, now think about what happens if someone buys some milk thinking it's pasteurized and ends up giving it to their young child who then becomes very sick with diarrhea, stomach bug, or an even worse bug that was bothering the cow at the time. The kid could die because a company was trying to save a buck.
Now I think specialized cheese making companies should be able to buy unpasteurized milk in the US and that the pasteurizing process should be a bit slower, (the 3 ways you can pasteurize milk is 30 minutes at 130, 15 minutes at 160, or the final "ultra pasteurized" process used too often: 1 min at 200. The slower you go the more flavor the milk has. This US law regarding pasteurized milk has been around along time.
Rawesome foods was trying to get away with something plainly said just about everywhere. What they did is basically the same as running a red light and then running up on the curb to get to another street, almost hitting a crowd of people in the process. I hope no one got sick from a companies desire to save a buck on heating milk. If they did what they did to be the company that sells unpasteurized products, they should have moved to a country that allows it.
On August 07 2011 07:39 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Unpasteurized milk can be very dangerous specially in younger and older people. You aren't even allowed to buy it in the US for a reason. Now most people have never seen unpasteurized milk for that reason, now think about what happens if someone buys some milk thinking it's pasteurized and ends up giving it to their young child who then becomes very sick with diarrhea, stomach bug, or an even worse bug that was bothering the cow at the time. The kid could die because a company was trying to save a buck.
Now I think specialized cheese making companies should be able to buy unpasteurized milk in the US and that the pasteurizing process should be a bit slower, (the 3 ways you can pasteurize milk is 30 minutes at 130, 15 minutes at 160, or the final "ultra pasteurized" process used too often: 1 min at 200. The slower you go the more flavor the milk has. This US law regarding pasteurized milk has been around along time.
Rawesome foods was trying to get away with something plainly said just about everywhere. What they did is basically the same as running a red light and then running up on the curb to get to another street, almost hitting a crowd of people in the process. I hope no one got sick from a companies desire to save a buck on heating milk. If they did what they did to be the company that sells unpasteurized products, they should have moved to a country that allows it.
you are allowed to buy it. This is absolutely incorrect.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
FASCISM.
You're either trolling or extremely fucking stupid...
Neither. It's sarcasm. You need to have your sarcasm detector readjusted.
The issue with raw milk isn't that it's about your right to put whatever you want in your body. I have no issues with people who want to put whatever inside their body, regardless of the personal consequences or health risks. The problems is that raw milk doesn't comply to the regulations needed to guarantee milk is safe. It's perfectly within your right to put something dangerous in your body, but the risk of food poisoning and various possible outbreaks thanks to lack of regulation means that consumption of raw milk isn't an issue that relates purely to the individual that engages in the activity. The problem concerns more then just one person.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
FASCISM.
Well played sir. Lets start from the top.
"nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that."
This answer can actually vary. How do you know the water you are drinking doesn't contain human feces from somewhere upstream.That's asking to get an illness, and potentially life threatening depending on the circumstance. Also those nutrients are what is causing our lakes and other water sources to become eutrophic. Very sad indeed, but that is of a different subject matter.
Eutrophication is more due to industrial fertilizers.
"and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures? "
I'm not here to judge other cultures, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but it is when their beliefs can begin to threaten a child's, elderly's, or sick person's life is when we should regulate certain food products such as milk.
Raw milk is available in many places in Europe. Its not endangering anyone's lives. the FDAs own information suggests that you are something like 35,000 times less likely to get sick from raw milk than other foods.
but when an illegal vendor, or any vendor of the sorts are selling products which potentially have the power to make people extremely sick, then I say we make sure as hell that we have some sort of regulating agency to help keep that person or business in check. Most businesses, even the beloved small business' main goal is to make profit. They will, alot of times, cut corners on simple things such as basic hygiene and proper (and perhaps more time consuming) methods in order to make a faster buck.
GM foods. FDA approved. Obscenely long list of health problems suggesting not safe. Approval does not imply safety.
"Fascists promote violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[7] Fascists view conflict as a fact of life that is responsible for all human progress.[8] Fascists exalt militarism as providing positive transformation in society, in providing spiritual renovation, education, instilling of a will to dominate in people's character, and creating national comradeship through military service.[9] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violent attacks on opponents, or to overthrow a political system.[10]"Fascism.
There's no violence promotion or nationalism going on here, just preventative measures trying to ensure the overall health of the public.
absolute faith in the benevolence and rightness of those that create the rules creates a breeding ground for fascist-like dynamics. Not fascism, but close enough in the substantive points.
Eutrophication is very sad indeed, I just wanted to mention it so that whoever reads this will hopefully learn something new on the issue and perhaps may be able to do something about it.
Of course question the rules set in place, it will allow for either a better set of rules to take its place or to take away any of the unnecessary regulation. But, at the same time know why they are there. If we could legally buy rocket launchers or C4, it would be okay, assuming they were not going to be used to harm people. Can we guarantee that? No, therefore some regulations need to be place and enforced.
Please link me to the information that says milk borne illnesses are 35,000 times less likely to occur than other foods. I am actually curious to read about it. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but does it imply raw milk? Or milk that's already been pasteurized, it will change your argument completely.
The rest of your argument goes into more of a philosophical area, which I would like to avoid. Talking about fascism is irrelevant to the subject at hand. Rawsome farms sold illegal raw milk and other illegal products. You can probably go buy legal raw milk, because I have seen it sold before, its just to me, its counter intuitive to buy such a product. Just make sure they have warning labels on it and that's as far as we can go on regulating that product.
Long term human trials for food sounds expensive and time consuming. Why not just reduce the risk of health problems by regulating some high risk foods? Sounds cheaper, easier, and overall is the best method to use. We have to solve problems not only efficiency, but cost effectively.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
FASCISM.
You're either trolling or extremely fucking stupid...
Neither. It's sarcasm. You need to have your sarcasm detector readjusted.
I need to adjust mine too apparantly, I did not manage to read through the sarcasm in that post either. Looking through it again though..makes sense.
I'd like to see him explicitly identify what was meant by 'generall health increased'.
life span is increasing, yes, but obesity, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and a slough of other food-related health disorders are way up.
I also like how 'organic' is somehow treated as the opposite of 'conventional'. When did this conceptual shift occur? Food since the dawn of time, except for the past 20-35 years has been organic.
Nothing against food that isn't organic per se, but its fairly important to be educated about where your food comes from and what goes into it.
This is the problem with organic food enthusiasts, they can't keep their enthusiasm from making them look silly.
Yes, general health increased. People live longer with less food-caused illness. Farming methods have absolutely nothing to do with the increase in obesity, cancer, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. What we do with the crops we grow (what foods we turn them into) and how much of them we eat, along with a sedentary lifestyle, are.
It's totally ridiculous to blame the health consequences of bad eating habits on non-organically grown crops.
And sorry, but conventional farming has not been around for only 20-35 years. What you mean is, mechanized farming has been around about 70, and use of advanced chemistry about 50. You're making a meaningless distinction based solely on technological and scientific advancement. If chemical fertilizers and pesticides were available earlier they would have been used earlier. "Organic" farming is not a return to some idealized past. Past farmers were hardly "organic" in the sense the term is used today, and it's disingenuous to try to link the two.
Nothing against organic food enthusiasts per se, but their ubiquitous and never-ending attitude that "it's important to get educated" implying that people who disagree with them are not makes people not want to listen to them.
I'd like to see him explicitly identify what was meant by 'generall health increased'.
life span is increasing, yes, but obesity, cancer, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and a slough of other food-related health disorders are way up.
I also like how 'organic' is somehow treated as the opposite of 'conventional'. When did this conceptual shift occur? Food since the dawn of time, except for the past 20-35 years has been organic.
Nothing against food that isn't organic per se, but its fairly important to be educated about where your food comes from and what goes into it.
This is the problem with organic food enthusiasts, they can't keep their enthusiasm from making them look silly.
Yes, general health increased. People live longer with less food-caused illness. Farming methods have absolutely nothing to do with the increase in obesity, cancer, heart disease, hypertension and diabetes. What we do with the crops we grow (what foods we turn them into) and how much of them we eat, along with a sedentary lifestyle, are.
It's totally ridiculous to blame the health consequences of bad eating habits on non-organically grown crops.
And sorry, but conventional farming has not been around for only 20-35 years. What you mean is, mechanized farming has been around about 70, and use of advanced chemistry about 50. You're making a meaningless distinction based solely on technological and scientific advancement. If chemical fertilizers and pesticides were available earlier they would have been used earlier. "Organic" farming is not a return to some idealized past. Past farmers were hardly "organic" in the sense the term is used today, and it's disingenuous to try to link the two.
Nothing against organic food enthusiasts per se, but their ubiquitous and never-ending attitude that "it's important to get educated" implying that people who disagree with them are not makes people not want to listen to them.
yeah, this isn't really about organic vs. non organic in my mind, its about general food supply issues, of which organic vs. non organic is one strand that is interrelated with other issues.
Its fairly dangerous, which is why you have to make sure it is sourced correctly
I eat a lot of organic food and especially meat and dairy products.
Not that because it is lacking technology or any of that, but simply put the care that goes into organic food causes the actual quality of food to be higher. As someone who can afford to pay for organic food, and cares a lot about my health, i invest in particular kinds of organic food because of the sourcing advantages
When i buy meat, i buy organic chicken because i know it comes from grass fed chickens kept in a healthy, disease free environment When i buy eggs, i buy speciality eggs because when you crack open the egg you get a bright, healthy orange yolk colour indicative of healthy, disease free chickens.
Raw milk in particular, is dangerous not because of the nature of raw milk, but because of the conditions most cows are kept in. American milk producing cows in particular, are fed a ton of crap, like processed soy (which is horrifically bad for you - this isn't the normal soy you and me think of), slurry (don't even get me started), and the milk they produce is REALLY bad for you, and disease ridden, and so it HAS to be pasteurised in order for you not to die when you drink it (its basically like drinking poison)
I'm the kind of guy to do a lot of research into the food i eat and buy to stay healthy and happy. At the same time, many "chemical" scares are a complete scare. I'll happily add msg to food to increase its flavour (sometimes - especially to extremely plain food) because i know it is safe.
However, low grade meat and milk is NOT very safe, which is why i buy the highest grade possible - organic.
On August 07 2011 08:37 BrTarolg wrote: I drink raw milk all the time
Its fairly dangerous, which is why you have to make sure it is sourced correctly
I eat a lot of organic food and especially meat and dairy products.
Not that because it is lacking technology or any of that, but simply put the care that goes into organic food causes the actual quality of food to be higher. As someone who can afford to pay for organic food, and cares a lot about my health, i invest in particular kinds of organic food because of the sourcing advantages
When i buy meat, i buy organic chicken because i know it comes from grass fed chickens kept in a healthy, disease free environment When i buy eggs, i buy speciality eggs because when you crack open the egg you get a bright, healthy orange yolk colour indicative of healthy, disease free chickens.
Raw milk in particular, is dangerous not because of the nature of raw milk, but because of the conditions most cows are kept in. American milk producing cows in particular, are fed a ton of crap, like processed soy (which is horrifically bad for you - this isn't the normal soy you and me think of), slurry (don't even get me started), and the milk they produce is REALLY bad for you, and disease ridden, and so it HAS to be pasteurised in order for you not to die when you drink it (its basically like drinking poison)
I'm the kind of guy to do a lot of research into the food i eat and buy to stay healthy and happy. At the same time, many "chemical" scares are a complete scare. I'll happily add msg to food to increase its flavour (sometimes - especially to extremely plain food) because i know it is safe.
However, low grade meat and milk is NOT very safe, which is why i buy the highest grade possible - organic.
I agree with this post. I buy organic milk and eggs as well as other products. The difference is the organic milk I buy is ultra-pasteurized. I would recommend purchasing organic pasteurized milk because it is overall more sanitary and safer to drink. (Why take any unnecessary risk at all?)
The confusion comes with people saying that raw milk is the only way to drink it to be healthy, but again, I find it counterintuitive to say that. My job right now to make sure everyone that reads this thread understands that raw milk does not mean safer or healthier. Raw and organic milk are not the same thing, and that pasteurization is not bad, its a heating method created to kill pathogens.
Well the raw milk that is being sold is from grass fed cows. The reason why there is pasteurized milk is because grain fed cows are filled with disease from the grains they eat and poor living conditions.
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.
There are probably no laws against drinking the milk. However keep in mind this is a store, and to sell raw cow and goat milk illegally is either bypassing some kind of government regulation and/or could be dangerous to someones health. People purchasing the milk may not know it was obtained illegally.
Also @OP the article clearly states its bias. I find it hard to believe the story is actually that one-sided.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
nah ur wrong. i don't need an organization to uphold food standards for me. water from a river is super safe because it's from nature and anything that is in it is NUTRIENTS. people drank river water for 9684 years and were fine, you can't explain that.
and how is raw milk unsafe i mean it comes from a cow. FROM A COW. did you know that in some cultures cows are revered creatures?
the FDA is just a mob organization that wants to make money off the american people by squashing small-time farmers. how can they allow the sale of controlled substances that require years of research and are conducted by trained professionals who've probably studied for near a decade, but they won't allow random joe's off the street sell milk?
i mean, i've heard of people mixing liquor in their bathtubs at home then selling it in stores and that's perfectly legal (or maybe it was in a movie i saw, or maybe documentary, i don't remember better say documentary). i've got you're answer buddy and you ain't gonna like it.
On August 07 2011 04:09 Zzoram wrote: Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
Oh come on dude this is a complete joke. People have been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, ive been drinking for decades. Aint nothing bad happened to me.
On August 07 2011 04:09 Zzoram wrote: Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
Oh come on dude this is a complete joke. People have been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, ive been drinking for decades. Aint nothing bad happened to me.
Exactly, just like all those people who have been smoking for decades with nothing bad happening to them. This is proof that raw milk, and by extension smoking, is completely healthy...
People have been so alienated from country life, theyve never had it so a lot of people have no idea the fuck theyre talking about. In my village everyone drinks raw milk, cow owners earn solid income, a lot of old people(yes weaker immune systems) and their grandchildren who come to country for summer all drink it. And guess what? Aint nothing happened. Its all ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering, just like the terrorist "threat" that gets people worried and approve spending 10% of GDP down the toilet.
On August 07 2011 04:09 Zzoram wrote: Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
Oh come on dude this is a complete joke. People have been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, ive been drinking for decades. Aint nothing bad happened to me.
Exactly, just like all those people who have been smoking for decades with nothing bad happening to them. This is proof that raw milk, and by extension smoking, is completely healthy...
Nawww... Logic!?!? No thanks. Them there lil' critters - eee kow-lyee - whatchumacallums' ain't got nothin on me. They's a COMPLETE joke I reck'n. That there guvernmint needs ter git its DIRTY hands off my life I tell's ya.. TEA PARTY 2012 mark my werds thar gunna be CHANGES i tell ya derr gee der dey took er jerbs derrr rawwrrr
On August 07 2011 09:18 xarthaz wrote: People have been so alienated from country life, theyve never had it so a lot of people have no idea the fuck theyre talking about. In my village everyone drinks raw milk, cow owners earn solid income, a lot of old people(yes weaker immune systems) and their grandchildren who come to country for summer all drink it. And guess what? Aint nothing happened. Its all ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering, just like the terrorist "threat" that gets people worried and approve spending 10% of GDP down the toilet.
*ing ding ding** Troll alert! Detected: Bona-fiiiide troll, niner-niner-bravo, tango incoming, locked on radar! Calling all available assets..over!
Roger, tally-one, Crazy Horse One troll-reaction-force inbound.. ETA 3..2..Bombs away! Over n' out!
Here's a knowledge bomb for you: Pasteurization: It's a scientific fact - not "pseudoscientific" nonsense. If you want "pseudoscientific", refer to 2012 world-ending theories, paranormal activities, or astrology/palm-readings. As for health and medicine, please leave your shit at home and quit spreading it like it's truth.
RAW. MILK. IS. NOT. SAFE. FACT.
I don't give two shits if you happen to enjoy risking it with your tribe in farmville; it does not change the FACT that it's not safe. What, you don't believe in easily corroborated FACTS?
Also I don't know where the hell you get your info, LOL, but since when does the US spend 10% of GDP/year on Afghanistan? What the fuck?
Look, even if you are scared of the bacteria, its an easy fix. A single drop of bleach into a gallon of milk, give it a good shake, and 100% bacteria eliminated. Same with every other food "danger". There is nothing dangerous about food, its nonsense.
On August 07 2011 09:24 xarthaz wrote: Look, even if you are scared of the bacteria, its an easy fix. A single drop of bleach into a gallon of milk, give it a good shake, and 100% bacteria eliminated. Same with every other food "danger". There is nothing dangerous about food, its nonsense.
Horse shit. I work with E. coli on a regular basis. One drop of bleach in a large volume of bacteria-laced fluid is not sufficient to ensure complete destruction of the entire population. You just pull shit out of thin air and pretend it's truth; utterly mind-boggling how anyone takes you half-seriously. For your information, the amount of bleach it takes to eliminate a given amount of bacteria is more than you'd want to ingest, you sick, sick, sick person. I seriously hope you don't bleach milk and feed it to people.
On August 07 2011 04:09 Zzoram wrote: Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
Oh come on dude this is a complete joke. People have been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, ive been drinking for decades. Aint nothing bad happened to me.
Exactly, just like all those people who have been smoking for decades with nothing bad happening to them. This is proof that raw milk, and by extension smoking, is completely healthy...
Nawww... Logic!?!? No thanks. Them there lil' critters - eee kow-lyee - whatchumacallums' ain't got nothin on me. They's a COMPLETE joke I reck'n. That there guvernmint needs ter git its DIRTY hands off my life I tell's ya.. TEA PARTY 2012 mark my werds thar gunna be CHANGES i tell ya derr gee der dey took er jerbs derrr rawwrrr
On August 07 2011 09:18 xarthaz wrote: People have been so alienated from country life, theyve never had it so a lot of people have no idea the fuck theyre talking about. In my village everyone drinks raw milk, cow owners earn solid income, a lot of old people(yes weaker immune systems) and their grandchildren who come to country for summer all drink it. And guess what? Aint nothing happened. Its all ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering, just like the terrorist "threat" that gets people worried and approve spending 10% of GDP down the toilet.
*ing ding ding** Troll alert! Detected: Bona-fiiiide troll, niner-niner-bravo, tango incoming, locked on radar! Calling all available assets..over!
Roger, tally-one, Crazy Horse One troll-reaction-force inbound.. ETA 3..2..Bombs away! Over n' out!
Here's a knowledge bomb for you: Pasteurization: It's a scientific fact - not "pseudoscientific" nonsense. If you want "pseudoscientific", refer to 2012 world-ending theories, paranormal activities, or astrology/palm-readings. As for health and medicine, please leave your shit at home and quit spreading it like it's truth.
RAW. MILK. IS. NOT. SAFE. FACT.
I don't give two shits if you happen to enjoy risking it with your tribe in farmville; it does not change the FACT that it's not safe. What, you don't believe in easily corroborated FACTS?
Also I don't know where the hell you get your info, LOL, but since when does the US spend 10% of GDP/year on Afghanistan? What the fuck?
Do you have any research to back up your statements?
On August 07 2011 09:18 xarthaz wrote: People have been so alienated from country life, theyve never had it so a lot of people have no idea the fuck theyre talking about. In my village everyone drinks raw milk, cow owners earn solid income, a lot of old people(yes weaker immune systems) and their grandchildren who come to country for summer all drink it. And guess what? Aint nothing happened. Its all ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering, just like the terrorist "threat" that gets people worried and approve spending 10% of GDP down the toilet.
I live in a town that has to be in the running for the smallest town in the US, our only claim to fame is our unique breed of cattle. Over half of the people who go to my college come here to study agriculture/cows (the other half chemistry interestingly enough). I can at any moment go grab myself some nice feces infested milk. I refrain, mostly because of the terrorist threat... and the fact that drinking said feces infested milk would increase my risk for illness. Who would benefit from such "ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering" as you propose?
On August 07 2011 04:09 Zzoram wrote: Guys, THIS ISN'T ABOUT ORGANIC FOOD. It's about illegal sale and distribution of raw milk.
Framing the argument as a war against organic food is completely propaganda. The raid was about selling and distributing raw milk. You can legally buy organic pasteurized milk, just not raw milk. Raw milk can contain E.coli, Salmonella, Tuberculosis, among other things. Those are deadly bacteria that can be spread between people by something as simple as not washing their hands properly after their diarrhea, and then shaking hands, preparing food for others, or touching something that someone else will touch within a short period of time. Even if you don't die after drinking raw milk, if you visit a retirement home to see grandma and you still have some bacteria on your hands from wiping your ass, you could spread it all over the facility and cause and outbreak that kills tons of old people. Same thing could happen if you visit McDonald's after your diarrhea, and transfer some bacteria to the door. The people who touch the door afterwards can pick up the bacteria, and people often eat without washing their hands at restaurants, so it's a common way to get infected. This type of thing happens all the time and is incredibly difficult to trace and stop. It's far safer for the public to limit contact with those deadly bacteria whenever possible because of how quickly they can be spread. These things can kill middle-aged healthy people sometimes too, not just old people or young children. Even if they don't kill you, they can cause long lasting health complications, and the hospitalization uses up a bed and resources that could go towards other sick people. Prevention is easier and cheaper than dealing with an outbreak.
Oh come on dude this is a complete joke. People have been drinking raw milk for hundreds of years, ive been drinking for decades. Aint nothing bad happened to me.
Exactly, just like all those people who have been smoking for decades with nothing bad happening to them. This is proof that raw milk, and by extension smoking, is completely healthy...
Nawww... Logic!?!? No thanks. Them there lil' critters - eee kow-lyee - whatchumacallums' ain't got nothin on me. They's a COMPLETE joke I reck'n. That there guvernmint needs ter git its DIRTY hands off my life I tell's ya.. TEA PARTY 2012 mark my werds thar gunna be CHANGES i tell ya derr gee der dey took er jerbs derrr rawwrrr
On August 07 2011 09:18 xarthaz wrote: People have been so alienated from country life, theyve never had it so a lot of people have no idea the fuck theyre talking about. In my village everyone drinks raw milk, cow owners earn solid income, a lot of old people(yes weaker immune systems) and their grandchildren who come to country for summer all drink it. And guess what? Aint nothing happened. Its all ridiculous pseudoscientific scare mongering, just like the terrorist "threat" that gets people worried and approve spending 10% of GDP down the toilet.
*ing ding ding** Troll alert! Detected: Bona-fiiiide troll, niner-niner-bravo, tango incoming, locked on radar! Calling all available assets..over!
Roger, tally-one, Crazy Horse One troll-reaction-force inbound.. ETA 3..2..Bombs away! Over n' out!
Here's a knowledge bomb for you: Pasteurization: It's a scientific fact - not "pseudoscientific" nonsense. If you want "pseudoscientific", refer to 2012 world-ending theories, paranormal activities, or astrology/palm-readings. As for health and medicine, please leave your shit at home and quit spreading it like it's truth.
RAW. MILK. IS. NOT. SAFE. FACT.
I don't give two shits if you happen to enjoy risking it with your tribe in farmville; it does not change the FACT that it's not safe. What, you don't believe in easily corroborated FACTS?
Also I don't know where the hell you get your info, LOL, but since when does the US spend 10% of GDP/year on Afghanistan? What the fuck?
Do you have any research to back up your statements?
ROFL wait...you just asked me if I have personal research on the concept of pasteurization? What?
In fact, apparently pasteurization may not even be enough to combat pathogens in untreated milk. It's not some lunatic concept developed to steal your money or whatever. I know you're just trolling, but really, cut it out. It confuses people. This is like arguing with somebody about whether or not cigarettes contribute to the multiple-hit hypothesis of cancer.
Diseases that pasteurization can prevent include tuberculosis, brucellosis, diphtheria, scarlet fever and Q-fever; it also kills the harmful bacteria Salmonella, Listeria, Yersinia, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus, and Escherichia coli among others. Milk Pasteurization: Guarding against disease, Michigan State University Extension, http://www.fcs.msue.msu.edu/ff/pdffiles/foodsafety2.pdf Smith, P. W., (August 1981), “Milk Pasteurization” Fact Sheet Number 57, U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service, Washington, D.C.
On August 07 2011 09:36 AoN.DimSum wrote: ? i asked if you have any proof that raw milk is bad.
Don't play dumb. Pasteurization is based upon the fact that raw milk is bad. You either failed to infer that or you are just trolling.
RT-PCR analysis of raw milk proves the presence of pathogens capable of surviving pasteurization - which, if anything, indicates that MORE should be done to treat milk than simple pasteurization. Doing nothing at all is downright risky. Fact. Is that enough proof for you?
Or is RT-PCR just another "gimmicky complete joke", like xarthaz would tell you?
Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
Please don't give out false information. You could literally be putting people's health and or lives at risk...
What false? The statement: "Raw milk is good" has nothing incorrect about it. It is unconditionally true. Its a value judgement, hence its universal validity in the context of the action whose subject it is. Hence also the universal validity of the anti-regulatory argument i presented, which is like a hammer of thunder, it clears all poison from the air, leaving only clarity, and truth to the field: that regulation is universally bad, and hence is to be eliminated.
Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff.
I think you are failing to realize that it is not reasonably safe to consume. Also on a less important note, many people, including myself, find the taste off-putting.
it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
It is preventing someone from ignoring health regulations. Had someone become infected, it could have easily spread to others who did not go out of their way to drink dangerous milk.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
Is it reasonable to let people do something that can harm not only themselves but those around them? How is this differant than drunk-driving or firing guns randomly into the air. These all can hurt those around you.
On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
"Look guy, your scientific evidence means nothing. The real matter here is that I'm a complete libertarian, and thus I don't agree with most of the stuff that exists in society today. I'm not here to have a logical discussion, I'm here to say that I don't care what you think: raw milk tastes good, it's mean to tell people what to do, and I think you're just a stubborn guy that doesn't want to let people do whatever they please - in other words, I don't like the fact that you aren't a libertarian like me.
Moreover, I feel that by writing in a completely esoteric format will dissuade you from continuing to object to my nonsense."
Sure. Whatever. I'll end with this:
The reason there are regulations on concepts such as selling unsafe foods is to increase health outlays. If one does not wish to comply with such regulation, one can do so in peace and in private. However, when one attempts to sell unregulated/unsafe food in a public location - one that requires a license - it becomes a problem.
That is all, have a lovely evening.
On August 07 2011 09:54 Probe1 wrote: FallDownMarigold you need to quote your reference. We can't see it without authorized access.
Truth be told, the guy asked ME to supply HIM with pub med links. I assumed he had full access to pub med linked journal articles as well. I guess he was just trying to take a freebie or something, but didn't actually have anything upon which he could base strong objections.
I'm in no real mood to go through some of these journal articles, but since you are a refreshingly logical/normal guy, I will oblige with a nice, colloquial review that is completely suitable to non-science nerds
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
This is ridiculously awful journalism. He just goes on a rant about corporatism without them actually discussing why the police is there in the first place.
EDIT: Haha, "I checked out your website, it's pretty cool, tell us more"
I'll pick up right where he left off if you care to back any of your statements with any evidence. Keep in mind that you're welcome to cite studies from anywhere on Earth, not just the "oppresive government of the United States".
I dare you. I dare you to prove raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk.
There are actually 133 pages of papers on pub med if you search "raw milk", all of which are available to me in full access.
The examples I'm linking are just a sprinkling of what seem like the more basic ones
I don't have an ID and don't really want to go through the process of registering. Is it possible that you could quote some relevant evidence of the safety of raw milk, or give a summary of the articles? Thanks.
There are actually 133 pages of papers on pub med if you search "raw milk", all of which are available to me in full access.
The examples I'm linking are just a sprinkling of what seem like the more basic ones
I don't have an ID and don't really want to go through the process of registering. Is it possible that you could quote some relevant evidence of the safety of raw milk, or give a summary of the articles? Thanks.
Certainly. Most articles on pub med are very scientific, so here's a nice review that is suitable to non-science nerds:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
What false? The statement: "Raw milk is good" has nothing incorrect about it. It is unconditionally true. Its a value judgement, hence its universal validity in the context of the action whose subject it is. Hence also the universal validity of the anti-regulatory argument i presented, which is like a hammer of thunder, it clears all poison from the air, leaving only clarity, and truth to the field: that regulation is universally bad, and hence is to be eliminated.
In other words, it has universal validity for the subject of xarthaz, and no one else.
So basically you're saying in one sentence that your statement is 100% irrefutable because you were talking about the context of you (which essentially makes it a useless waste of time, we are talking about society not xarthaz.
And then in the next sentence you're using that ("Hence") as the foundation for your typical extreme libertarian rant about irrefutable truths and how no one can rationally object to anything you're saying.
One sentence: I'm talking about myself, just myself, so it has 100% validity, I'm the only one who can say what I think is good, no one can put their judgment as above my own in that respect.
Next sentence: Since it is 100% valid for me it is also a 100% valid universal anti-regulatory argument (lolwut?)
(Remember, xarthaz forms all his opinions through impeccable logic based on self-evident, universal, irrefutable premises, including the impeccable logic and brilliant premises shown by his above quote)
On August 07 2011 09:51 xarthaz wrote: Look the bottom line is, Raw milk is good. It tastes good, you should try it. And its reasonably safe to consume, so that its excellent foodstuff. And following from that, any attempt to prevent people from peacefully consuming good food is bad. Its a no brainer: it is bad to do things that prevent people from peacefully doing good things.
Its a universal truth, a moral that any reasonable man can agree with. That is, except the megalomaniac behaviorists who take it to reject the concept of preference being a subject of individual that acts in accordance to it.
I hardly expect this to get through ur thick skull.. but, pathogenic microbe culture in raw milk are defined as zoonotic microbes. Such strains of bacteria/fungus/parasites get transmitted in-between animals. Which means one dairy cattle infected with say.. pathologic strains of brucellus or bacillus can mean the entire herd can get infected, and the pathogenic microbes they carry can get transmitted to humans by the milk they produce. If such cases are to happen, literally tens or hundreds of millions of people could be in danger.
There's no controversy in this post, no case.
It's fine if your village wants to take the risk and drink raw milk. Just be aware that ur village is in danger of endemic infection.
so, apparently, its not that they sold raw milk, its that they did so without the appropriate licenses. according to this article raw milk is not illegal, unlicensed raw milk is illegal. they arent banning it, they are just regulating it.
Raw milk prosecution draws LA protest
The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES
A raid on a health food store and its raw dairy products sparked a protest outside a Los Angeles courthouse Thursday where the market's owner was arraigned on charges of selling unlicensed, unpasteurized milk.
James Stewart, 64, pleaded not guilty to conspiracy to commit a crime and a dozen other counts. A Superior Court judge said he could be released on $30,000 bail on the condition that he does not distribute unlicensed dairy products while freed.
His arraignment came a day after he, along with Ventura County farmer Sharon Palmer and her employee Eugenie Bloch, were arrested on charges of producing unlicensed, unpasteurized goat milk products.
Volunteers at Stewart's Rawesome market in Venice said investigators also raided the store, dumping all dairy products and seizing cash from the register.
Prosecutors said Rawesome has been selling food to the public for six years without permits. Supporters said the market is really a members-only club specializing in raw foods and they accuse the government of an unjustified crackdown on raw milk.
At the protest, they held signs that said "Um Hello?! It's Milk!" and yelled, "Hey, hey, FDA, don't take our milk away."
Unpasteurized milk is legal in California but it's regulated to meet health standards. In the past, unpasteurized milk has been blamed for outbreaks of bacterial illnesses.
Prosecutors accused Palmer of operating her Santa Paula-based Healthy Family Farms without the required licensing for milk production.
She was scheduled to be arraigned Friday on nine counts.
Bloch, who was charged with three counts of conspiracy to commit a crime, pleaded not guilty Thursday and was released on her own recognizance.
The arrests came after a yearlong probe in which undercover investigators purchased unpasteurized goat milk, cheese and yogurt from Healthy Family Farms stands at farmers markets, according to a complaint.
Investigators also searched Rawesome in June 2010, seizing stacks of unmarked jugs of raw milk, cartons of raw goat and cow milk, and blocks of unpasteurized goat cheese, among other grocery items.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
i found another article too. the purpose of the licensing is to make sure the animals giving the raw milk are healthy and they arent selling tainted milk products.
"While it is lawful to manufacture and sell unpasteurized dairy products in California, applicable licenses and permits are required. These include regular veterinarian inspections of the animals and following equipment and sanitation requirements."
On August 07 2011 07:39 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Unpasteurized milk can be very dangerous specially in younger and older people. You aren't even allowed to buy it in the US for a reason. Now most people have never seen unpasteurized milk for that reason, now think about what happens if someone buys some milk thinking it's pasteurized and ends up giving it to their young child who then becomes very sick with diarrhea, stomach bug, or an even worse bug that was bothering the cow at the time. The kid could die because a company was trying to save a buck.
Now I think specialized cheese making companies should be able to buy unpasteurized milk in the US and that the pasteurizing process should be a bit slower, (the 3 ways you can pasteurize milk is 30 minutes at 130, 15 minutes at 160, or the final "ultra pasteurized" process used too often: 1 min at 200. The slower you go the more flavor the milk has. This US law regarding pasteurized milk has been around along time.
Rawesome foods was trying to get away with something plainly said just about everywhere. What they did is basically the same as running a red light and then running up on the curb to get to another street, almost hitting a crowd of people in the process. I hope no one got sick from a companies desire to save a buck on heating milk. If they did what they did to be the company that sells unpasteurized products, they should have moved to a country that allows it.
you are allowed to buy it. This is absolutely incorrect.
Oh? I have been looking for some for a while in order to pasteurize it and make some really good pastry cream. I will look around some more I guess. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I apologize for being incorrect.
On August 07 2011 09:57 NET wrote: Value judgement: I think murder is good, ergo I can kill people. Understand now?
Yes, if the subject of murder also thinks it is good. If he doesnt, it does not fulfill the gooness criterion.
Stop dodging, xarthaz.
Respond to this:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009;483-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009;6:793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)):1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
Thank you, Falldownmarigold. After reading that article, I would like to formally apologize to the people in this thread and express that I have changed my position. After reading about the dangers of milkborne diseases being communicable, I think it is fair for the FDA to shut down this business. I did not realize that drinking raw milk could affect those who do not drink it.
I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree.
Look, you can post all the studies you want (PS might want to turn off smilies there) the bottom line is: the action(ie selling milk) and subject of action(ie buying milk ) are good, hence lack of possibility for an utilitarian argument against the situation to exist. Hence the contradiction of the common premise of regulationism.
On August 07 2011 09:57 NET wrote: Value judgement: I think murder is good, ergo I can kill people. Understand now?
Yes, if the subject of murder also thinks it is good. If he doesnt, it does not fulfill the gooness criterion.
Right, this isn't philosophy class, its the real world, and scientific evidence takes precedent in terms of the legality of the issue.
On August 07 2011 10:18 shinosai wrote: Thank you, Falldownmarigold. After reading that article, I would like to formally apologize to the people in this thread and express that I have changed my position. After reading about the dangers of milkborne diseases being communicable, I think it is fair for the FDA to shut down this business. I did not realize that drinking raw milk could affect those who do not drink it.
I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree.
No need to apologize, we all have different opinions, its just if those opinions can lead to potential harm to others is where I/we need to educate people that don't know about certain topics. I'm just happy you know now.
Look, you can post all the studies you want (PS might want to turn off smilies there) the bottom line is: the action and subject of action are good, hence lack of possibility for an utilitarian argument against the situation to exist. Hence the contradiction of the common premise of regulationism.
Look guys, all those people studied who became ill from ingesting raw milk, they are as meaningful as fairies and unicorns because [insert Austrian School praxeology irrefutable rational truths nonsense here].
Those diseases those people caught cannot stand against the sheer force of the human mind. Begone, bacteria! My reason doth cast you out!
On August 07 2011 10:18 xarthaz wrote: Look, you can post all the studies you want (PS might want to turn off smilies there) the bottom line is: the action(ie selling milk) and subject of action(ie buying milk ) are good, hence lack of possibility for an utilitarian argument against the situation to exist. Hence the contradiction of the common premise of regulationism.
while we are getting rid of regulating milk, lets also get rid of products liability and stop regulating consumer products. screw the consumer, if his products kill his ass, he should have been more responsible.
while we are getting rid of regulating milk, lets also get rid of products liability and stop regulating consumer products. screw the consumer, if his products kill his ass, he should have been more responsible.
People who go into a store with the presumption that the vendor is selling them safe products are stupid rubes. The day clearly has 96 hours in it so people can sit around and fully inform themselves about any and all products they might conceivably buy.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
This is pathetic. When faced with studies that prove you wrong you change the subject instead of submitting a counter study, argument or even acknowledging that raw milk contains more pathogens than pasteurized milk. I no longer recognize your posts to be anything greater than feeble trolling.
Shinosai, if you could please have a section in the OP specifically about the dangers of raw milk using different links and studies complied in this thread, it would make life a bit easier for everyone. Great thread overall, i'm enjoying it.
The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.
On August 07 2011 10:18 shinosai wrote: Thank you, Falldownmarigold. After reading that article, I would like to formally apologize to the people in this thread and express that I have changed my position. After reading about the dangers of milkborne diseases being communicable, I think it is fair for the FDA to shut down this business. I did not realize that drinking raw milk could affect those who do not drink it.
I am still of the opinion that the government should not prevent us from eating, drinking, or smoking substances that are harmful to the body in a general sense. But those that have a danger to others probably should be regulated to some degree.
What a reasonable guy. Props to you for being so...logical. Also, you might be pleased to know that it actually still is okay to drink raw milk - you just can't sell it off to people in a regulated industry. You're totally right about "people should be able to do X harmful thing", so long as it's not harmful to others. The government agrees as well, as you are still allowed to drink raw milk in private, smoke cigarettes in private, drink liquor in private, etc. Marijuana will be next on the list of permissible private activities. My roommate has worked for Arnold Schwarzenegger as his assistant the past couple summer breaks, so he has a really strong involvement and perspective on politics, especially in CA. To borrow from his observation during one of our discussions: You know how the gay marriage legislature was shot down during its first couple attempts? Well, with time, it passed. The same will hold true regarding marijuana legislation - what is logical will pass with ample time. As for harder drugs, well, I think your argument applies: things like crack and meth are inherently dangerous to others, which is not okay. Overall, good attitude. Twas a pleasure
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
On August 07 2011 10:31 xarthaz wrote: The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.
i think you may be trying too hard to make your argument. i cant understand what you are trying to say.
the government regulates various things (health care, medicine, food, products, etc.) in order to insure that it is safe for the population. the government regulates raw milk because it has the potential for causing harm to the general population and the government wants to reduce that risk. otherwise, we could have legitimate businesses that sell safe products, and others who take no safety measures and pose a danger to the general public. regulation makes it so that a customer can go into the store and know that at the least minimum steps have been taken to protect their health.
at the end of the day, government regulation is normally a joke, and only minimal standards are enforced. better than nothing i suppose.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
There is something terribly wrong and I see that as a criminal act from the US governement. You can't forbid the nature, that's stupid and immoral. It seems they don't want you to be self dependant, wich is a shame in an economical crise.
I don't know if the farmer were arrested for that, but that could be a reason...
Ah yes, my link says that it was superseded by H.R.2751, but also said that S 510 replaced it, lol that contradiction confused me.
The original H.R. 2751 is a little bit different, but then the *text* of S 510 replaced it, creating what is now HR 2751. That is my understanding, anyways, and I can see how it might have confused you.
On August 07 2011 10:38 AoN.DimSum wrote: So what about raw milk from grass-fed cows? I'm trying to look for how the cows are fed but I can't find anything.
Even if it's handled in the safest way possible, it's still likely to carry various diseases.
I'm not sure if you guys are aware of it but a very recent bill forbid any american to possess and grow natural seeds. This is one of the most disgusting rule out there. You can not feed your cows or grow your own vegetables with seeds that doesn't come from the corporate industry. This senate bill has been voted without consentment of the public and has not been mediatizied.
It does say this though:
Exempts certain establishments that sell food directly to consumers, such as roadside stands, farmers markets or participants in a community supported agriculture program, from specified requirements of this Act.
Requires each owner, operator, or agent in charge of a food facility to identify and implement preventive controls to significantly minimize or prevent hazards that could affect food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by such facility. Sets forth provisions governing exemptions from such requirements for certain facilities.
Why would a bill that is allegedly intended to crush the independent producer in favor of the corporate giant specifically exempt the types of businesses (roadside stands, farmers markets) that are most likely to sell food not grown by a corporate giant?
In fact, the only information from your link provided that even deals with restricting food deals with food imports, not seeds, "natural" or otherwise:
Requires U.S. importers to perform risk-based foreign supplier verification activities to verify that imported food is produced in compliance with applicable requirements related to hazard analysis and standards for produce safety and is not adulterated or misbranded.
Requires the Secretary to establish a program to expedite review and importation of food offered for importation by U.S. importers who have voluntarily agreed to participate in such program.
Authorizes the Secretary to: (1) require a certification that an article of food imported or offered for import complies with applicable requirements of this Act; and (2) enter into arrangements and agreements with foreign governments to facilitate the inspection of registered foreign facilities. Requires food to be refused admission into the United States if permission to inspect the food facility is denied by the facility owner, operator, or agent or the foreign country.
Sets forth provisions governing the establishment of a system to recognize bodies that accredit third-party auditors and audit agents to certify that foreign entities meet applicable FFDCA requirements for importation of food into the United States.
I thought, maybe I can find this sinister corporatist regulation in the text of the bill.
Effects anyone growing food even if they are not selling it but consuming it.
The bill defines the term "food production facility" to be "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation." It's something of a stretch to interpret that definition as applying to persons who maintain home-based vegetable gardens or otherwise grow small amounts of food for personal consumption.
Requires organic farms to use specific fertilizers and poisonous insect sprays dictated by the newly formed agency to 'make sure there is no danger to the public food supply.'
No language in HR 875 mandates that farms (organic or otherwise) use of any particular fertilizer or pesticide, or requires the use of either of those products in general. The bill merely calls upon the FSA to establish regulations regarding "minimum standards related to fertilizer use."
The power it would give to Monsanto, the criminalization of seed banking, the 24 hours GPS tracking of their animals
No language in HR 875 addresses seed banking or requires GPS tracking of animals.
That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people
On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote: Safe does not imply good.
That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people
Deepelemblues, I never made any claims about what the bill does. I was just linking to show that it did indeed pass. The problems with that bill aren't really related to seeds, and that video is kind of out there. People are angry about the bill because it increases government spending by $1.4 billion (a drop in the bucket at this point) and because it gives the FDA more power. It now has the ability to enforce recalls without the aid of the court systems, and to take preventative action against food borne illness instead of just reacting. Those who support the bill argue that food borne illness has been increasing in recent times and it is the FDA's responsibility to reduce it.
I personally don't have much of an opinion on it one way or the other.
The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.
This is awful, terrible, really really stupid logic.
'Action bad' actions are not "subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation." So basically any behavior that would contradict his opinion is wrong because it is behavior that would contradict his opinion.
That behavior is real whether xarthaz say they are "subject of action good system" or not.
Safe does not imply good.
Safe implies safe, which most people make a value judgment of as "good."
So there you are again, being a hypocrite, declaring your value judgments superior to others'.
On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote: Safe does not imply good.
That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people
xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.
On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote: Safe does not imply good.
That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people
xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.
The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.
This is the worst, most awful kind of circular logic. Any example that contradicts my argument is invalid because it contradicts my argument. Only "action good" actions are valid to use as foundation for my arguments based on universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths, "action bad" actions are not valid to use as foundation for an argument against my universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths.
Safe implies safe, which most people make a value judgment as "good."
So there you are again, being a hypocrite, declaring your value judgments superior to others'.
Nothing to do with my value judgements, the refutation of utilitarian justification of regulation comes from valuations of actors and the subjects of their action, as i presented the argument in page 15. You two gentlemen have in your last post however engaged in an appeal to objective value or projection of your own judgements onto others. Classic fallacies of economics. Or appeal to democracy - yet im sure you would not consistently support it(aka genocide and slavery that are consistent with democracy)
On August 07 2011 10:47 xarthaz wrote: Safe does not imply good.
That is the fundamental problem with the regulation argument.Like the example that was: government puts your brain into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy of your brain. That would be the safest life possible. But a bad one, for many people
xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.
The product "harming customer" situation is a case of mismatch. That the subject of action perceiving action(selling good product) to be different than what action actually was(selling dud/hazard) which is not a case of the action good, subject of action good system that refutes utilitarian justifications of regulation. In other words, scams and frauds are subject to management.
This is the worst, most awful kind of circular logic. Any example that contradicts my argument is invalid because it contradicts my argument. Only "action good" actions are valid to use as foundation for my arguments based on universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths, "action bad" actions are not valid to use as foundation for an argument against my universal irrefutable praxeological self-evident truths.
Safe does not imply good.
Safe implies safe, which most people make a value judgment as "good."
So there you are again, being a hypocrite, declaring your value judgments superior to others'.
Nothing to do with my value judgements, the refutation of utilitarian justification of regulation comes from valuations of actors and the subjects of their action, as i presented the argument in page 15. You two gentlemen have in your last post however engaged in an appeal to objective value or projection of your own judgements onto others. Classic fallacies of economics.
No. You are failing miserably at addressing the issue at point. Every time you are confronted directly, you obfuscate the issue with your ridiculous, off-target posts such as this post. You purport that food that is unsafe is all well and good, but then you have literally no coherent argument when confronted by facts. You simply brush them off like a crazy person, then launch into tirades about meaningless, irrelevant topics such as "fallacies of economics". You engage in esoteric, bullshit tactics in an attempt to absolve yourself from responsibility to your initial arguments. Fuck off
Please learn to respond to separate arguments as separate arguments, not connected ones.
the refutation of utilitarian justification of regulation comes from valuations of actors and the subjects of their action,
And when the valuations of actors and the subjects of their actions do not meet up with the ideal of your system, you declare them to be not "subject" and irrelevant.
You two gentlemen have in your last post however engaged in an appeal to objective value or projection of your own judgements onto others. Classic fallacies of economics.
So you're afflicted by projection too, huh? Is there any kind of psychological denial-defense mechanism you won't indulge in?
Personally I wouldn't trust you to identify the sun in a clear noon sky, much less point out "classic fallacies of economics." (You tried to be too clever by half by the way, they are simply "classic fallacies" not just "classic fallacies of economics.")
Stop trying so hard to drown people in a jumble of jargon and incoherently presented concepts, you keep looking dumber and dumber with each post.
The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").
The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.
Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.
On August 07 2011 11:23 xarthaz wrote: The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").
The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.
Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.
On August 07 2011 11:23 xarthaz wrote: The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").
The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.
Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.
Raw milk is not unsafe, or at least not more unsafe in any sensible way of discussing it statistically speaking than any other food, especially when sanitary precautions are taken.
Arguments of regulation being 'noble' because of it being due to principle is absolutely flawed when you consider that the dairy industry lobby profits greatly from regulation.
On August 07 2011 11:23 xarthaz wrote: The thread has become about opinions on should statements ("should gvt regulate milk"). The fundamental two possibilities that can imply a should statement is direct valuation of action("gvt should regulate milk just because") OR valuation of some principle which answers the question("should regulate because its safe").
The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.
Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.
dont worry xarthaz, I'm on your side. From what gathered (I asked eshlow :D) raw milk is fine as long you get it from your local farm. They would use a minimal amount of cows so the risk of disease is low.
Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.
On August 07 2011 11:33 xarthaz wrote: Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.
yes, and I'm restating the safety argument, and pointing out that you can't argue for principle since its essentially an argument for profit.
Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
On August 07 2011 11:33 AoN.DimSum wrote: dont worry xarthaz, I'm on your side. From what gathered (I asked eshlow :D) raw milk is fine as long you get it from your local farm. They would use a minimal amount of cows so the risk of disease is low.
how would you know if they use the "minimal amount of cows" if it is not regulated? just going to trust a company who is trying to make a profit. ergo, gov't regulation. booyah~!
On August 06 2011 15:38 Jibba wrote: You speak in generalities as if there's just "the government" that does things, or that all Americans follow the food pyramid.
Also, communicable diseases from raw meats can spread from food product to food product, and it's much more likely for a person to unknowingly consume unsafe meat/milk than to unknowingly consume alcohol.
Well, at least when I grew up, we learned about the food pyramid in public school. Who is in charge of public schools? And while there is no proof that ALL Americans follow the food pyramid (I try to avoid absolutes), there is evidence that many do. Hence an increase in grain consumption and a decrease in fat consumption.
What evidence is there that anyone follows the food pyramid? You grew up learning to brush and floss after every meal, didn't you? How many people do you know who do that?
You can't say "the food pyramid's nutritional recommendations are bad, because since it was released obesity has gone up." That's a fallacy. You can certainly show that its recommendations are poor, and I doubt it would be hard to do, but the evidence you quoted is meaningless. If you're going to argue it, give it a proper defense.
Hi there, Jibba. I had to ask Eshlow for the link, and I managed to find it thanks to him.
It is of interest to consider the opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA) with respect to the first implementation of dietary guidelines [80]. In an editorial, it was stated:
We believe that it would be inappropriate at this time to adopt proposed national dietary goals as set forth in the Report on Dietary Goals for the United States. The evidence for assuming that benefits to be derived from the adoption of such universal dietary goals as set forth in the Report is not conclusive and there is potential for harmful effects from a radical long-term dietary change as would occur through adoption of the proposed national goals.
The guidelines recommended at that time show great similarity to the current recommendations:
The Report sets forth six dietary goals of the United States. These goals are as follows:
1.Increased carbohydrate consumption to account for 55% to 60% of energy (caloric) intake.
2.Reduce overall fat consumption from approximately 40% to 30% of energy intake.
3.Reduce saturated fat consumption to account for about 10% of total energy intake; and balance that with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which should account for about 10% of energy intake.
4.Reduce cholesterol consumption to about 300 mg/day.
5.Reduce sugar consumption by about 40% to account for about 15% total energy intake.
6.Reduce salt consumption by 50% to 85% to approximately 3 gm/day
In the three decades since, carbohydrate consumption has increased; overall fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol consumption have decreased to near or below targeted levels; caloric intake remains within recommended levels; and leisure-time physical activity has increased slightly (pp. D1-1, D3-10, B2-3). At the same time, scientific evidence in favor of these recommendations remains inconclusive, and we must consider the possibility that the “potential for harmful effects” has in fact been realized. Notably, “the prevalence of overweight and obesity in the US has increased dramatically in the past three decades” (A4); the number of Americans diagnosed with T2D has tripled [81].
The AMA concludes:
The Report suggests that the incidence of heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and tooth decay could be reduced by making qualitative and quantitative changes in “the American diet.” The goals are laudable; however, the American Medical Association believes that there are insufficient data to recommend such changes in the diet on a nationwide scale.
Laudable as the goals were, the application of those recommendations has constituted a population-wide dietary experiment that should be brought to a halt. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for the consumer or as the basis of public health policy. We ask whether the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process as it stands should continue or whether there might not be better alternatives.
It is time for public health leaders, scientists, and clinicians to stop blaming Americans for not following the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and instead to re-examine the process used to formulate the US dietary guidelines and determine whether or not it is still appropriate for our current needs.
It sounds an awful lot like Americans have followed the guidelines recommended to us. I admit that it might not be because they were following the food pyramid specifically, but still, we have followed through with the diet recommendations that are encouraged in our education system.
On August 07 2011 11:33 AoN.DimSum wrote: dont worry xarthaz, I'm on your side. From what gathered (I asked eshlow :D) raw milk is fine as long you get it from your local farm. They would use a minimal amount of cows so the risk of disease is low.
how would you know if they use the "minimal amount of cows" if it is not regulated? just going to trust a company who is trying to make a profit. ergo, gov't regulation. booyah~!
Again, appeal to safety. From your argument it follows that everyone should have their brain put into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, because that is the safest, longest life possible.
This is a compliance test - its purpose is to verify whether the premise of the person really is safety, or whether it is just a convenient excuse for justifying the action of government.
On August 07 2011 11:33 xarthaz wrote: Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.
No. You never provided a satisfactory refutation of 'the safety argument'. Quit being absurd. Put up or shut up.
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
FallDownMarigold, you yourself denounced the use of safety argument, there is no more need to address it. Look:
xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.
Your latest argument was an appeal to what a group of people think ("normal people"), not an argument of appeal to safety
On August 07 2011 11:41 xarthaz wrote: From your argument it follows that everyone should have their brain put into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, because that is the safest, longest life possible.
Oh shut up with your trolling. His argument is not one that seeks to promote maximum life expectancy. His argument seeks to support scientific findings that raw milk, on the whole, is more harmful to a population than...not raw milk. Why do you fail to see this simple point? Either you are seriously confused, or you are trolling hard. How do you claim that he is arguing for "brain in chamber" based off that?
On August 07 2011 11:45 xarthaz wrote: FallDownMarigold, you yourself denounced the use of safety argument, there is no more need to address it. Look:
xarthaz, normal people in the normal, logical world value 'good' in the case of food as meaning 'does not increase your risk to becoming sick'. normal people do not opt out of this form of 'good' for what might taste better AT THE EXPENSE OF HEALTH OUTLAYS.
Your latest argument was an appeal to what a group of people think ("normal people"), not an argument of appeal to safety
What??? Oh. My. The quote you provided is me saying: "Xarthaz, shut the fuck up, people don't opt for 'good tasting food' if it means they are at a higher risk for illness". You are a nutcase. Just shut up if you can't have a normal discussion.
On August 07 2011 11:33 AoN.DimSum wrote: dont worry xarthaz, I'm on your side. From what gathered (I asked eshlow :D) raw milk is fine as long you get it from your local farm. They would use a minimal amount of cows so the risk of disease is low.
how would you know if they use the "minimal amount of cows" if it is not regulated? just going to trust a company who is trying to make a profit. ergo, gov't regulation. booyah~!
Again, appeal to safety. From your argument it follows that everyone should have their brain put into subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, because that is the safest, longest life possible.
This is a compliance test - its purpose is to verify whether the premise of the person really is safety, or whether it is just a convenient excuse for justifying the action of government.
gov't regulation is about safety; i never said otherwise nor could i.
also, i already addressed your brain in subsistence argument by saying your brain is in brine, so lets not go back there.
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
The supporters of milk regulation have taken the noble road, that of being men of principle. At first, the principle was safety. When i pointed out what else the safety principle implies, FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues changed their principle from safety to democracy("most people think.." "normal people ..."). This is very important in regards to the debate, as this completely changes the justification. Suddenly, all the safety arguments, science quotations etc that have been debated for 15 pages become irrelevant. Just by the change of the principle of their ethics.
Now i pointed the unpleasentries of democracy. Will the principle change again? Interesting to see.
I've made no such argument or statements, and I've mostly been utilizing myself to point out the gaping holes in your logic.
Cardoc, sure perhaps so. But the point of the post was: FallDownMarigold and DeepElemBlues THEMSELVES denounced from the safety argument, when i pointed out the other conclusion of safety argument(everyone being dismantled with their brain in incubator). Instead, they changed it to an appeal to majority, or democracy argument. As such, it is not even necessary to argue against the safety claim any more.
I ignored your hypothetical because it was irrelevant and nonsensical, I didn't change my argument to some appeal to democracy.
<-- Honestly has no idea what xarthaz is talking about in regards to what he says I have been arguing.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
Safest by what standards? I can think of many ways in which life as a brain in an incubator could be much less safe than life as a brain inside a working body.
Since you are so hung up on your brain in a jar hypothetical and how it just blew us away, let's discuss it then.
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
slippery slope argument is pretty cool i hear.
what's that you value good over bad? then you'd gladly trade your entire life for 1 second of pure bliss right?
So by your resoning xarthaz, anyone who agrees with safety labels, also agrees that everyone should have their brain put into a subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, it sounds to me like you are trying to use a strawman argument.
If the product they are selling had nothing wrong with it, or no potential to have anything wrong with it, why were they not regulated, or have a trading permit for the products?
Safest by what standards? I can think of many ways in which life as a brain in an incubator could be much less safe than life as a brain inside a working body.
Safe by whatever definition you like, i just used life maximization as common condiiton
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
It's an extreme. It's absurd. Quit trolling.
Thats my point. That the safety fetishism, when taken to its logical conclusion, is absurd. Hence it not being a consistent premise for the debate at hand, and is to be rejected to maintain logical rigor.
On August 07 2011 11:52 Grunor wrote: So by your resoning xarthaz, anyone who agrees with safety labels, also agrees that everyone should have their brain put into a subsistence chamber with necessary nutrients to maximize life expectancy, it sounds to me like you are trying to use a strawman argument.
If the product they are selling had nothing wrong with it, or no potential to have anything wrong with it, why were they not regulated, or have a trading permit for the products?
No. The brain in chamber argument follows from the premise that "government should do what is safe". the support for milk regulation can be for other reasons too, of course, just the main one that was employed in this thread was the "government should do what is safe" one.
Safe by whatever definition you like, i just used life maximization as common condiiton
Really?
Which is safer, gentlemen and gentlemen presenting themselves as ladies at TL:
1. Having your brain in a jar, being entirely dependent on your survival on others keeping power going to the jar, keeping nutrients going into the jar, making sure someone with a body doesn't come into the jar room and throw your brain into a corner, dependent on others making sure the equipment is operational during/after some kind of natural disaster or power blackout, etc. 2. Having your brain in your body, being able to manipulate your environment and defend / provide for yourself. Not having to rely on anyone.
Which is safer?
No. The brain in chamber argument follows from the premise that "government should do what is safe".
No it doesn't, as I've just demonstrated. Being a brain in a jar is not necessarily more safe than being a brain in a body.
Safest by what standards? I can think of many ways in which life as a brain in an incubator could be much less safe than life as a brain inside a working body.
Safe by whatever definition you like, i just used life maximization as common condiiton
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
It's an extreme. It's absurd. Quit trolling.
Thats my point. That the safety fetishism, when taken to its logical conclusion, is absurd. Hence it not being a consistent premise for the debate at hand, and is to be rejected to maintain logical rigor.
False reductio ad absurdum. You stretch the essence of 'safety' in this context to a ridiculous extreme. Your point about brains is stupid, fallacious, and irrelevant.
The logical conclusion in this case is not safety ad extremum; the fact that you stubbornly say it is says a lot about your lack of comprehension of this entire raw milk topic. Move on please.
No. The brain in chamber argument follows from the premise that "government should do what is safe". the support for milk regulation can be for other reasons too, of course, just the main one that was employed in this thread was the "government should do what is safe" one.
So therefore to go to the opposite end of the argument, the goverment shouldnt use safety as a factor in this, therefore they should do nothing, that however opens up a spectrum of other issues, as most laws as enforced to help with the safety of the population, which by using your arguments, makes said laws invalid.
Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
The problem here is that such a definition, in order to be consistent with vibrant, diverse human life, must likely employ value judgements of the people whose safety is to be defined, hence giving up universal meaning of the definition, rendering it unusable as a policy guide.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
try reading the regulation/legislation and the minimal safety standards it requires.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
My pleasure:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009 ; 48 : 93-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009; 6 : 793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)) :1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
So no, we don't need to provide you with this, this, and that, you have a very shallow understanding of the complexity of human society and human interaction, especially individual human interaction with the social construct "society."
It's funny, apparently to be right, we need to come up with a utopian system for society. Guys, you grab the coffee, I'll grab the weed, we're going to be up all night brainstorming the perfect society. Because otherwise, you know, we're wrong. If we can't fix all of humanity's problems right here in this thread, we are wrong and xarthaz is right.
Is this really how the Austrian School develops minds to defend its ideas, xarthaz? What an anti-intellectual movement the Austrian School must be if you are typical of the kind of thinking it produces.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
try reading the regulation/legislation and the minimal safety standards it requires.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009 ; 483-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009; 6 : 793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)) :1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
That does not define the question at hand. The question at hand is justification of the action(of rawsome bust), not description of the action employed to do it.
That does not define the question at hand. The question at hand is justification of the action(of rawsome bust), not description of the action employed to do it.
Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy, every time you are forced to back down you attempt this, please stop.
On August 07 2011 08:05 NET wrote: You can probably go buy legal raw milk, because I have seen it sold before, its just to me, its counter intuitive to buy such a product. Just make sure they have warning labels on it and that's as far as we can go on regulating that product.
What would that warning label say? Don't buy this, because it could give your kid tuberculosis, and then he could pass it along to 30 of his classmates, and then a few kids could die?
This sounds like fear-mongering, but that is not a "pretend" outcome of drinking raw cow's milk. It is what used to be a hard fact of life before modern disease prevention, something pasteurization plays a large role in.
Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
So no, we don't need to provide you with this, this, and that, you have a very shallow understanding of the complexity of human society and human interaction, especially individual human interaction with the social construct "society."
It's funny, apparently to be right, we need to come up with a utopian system for society. Guys, you grab the coffee, I'll grab the weed, we're going to be up all night brainstorming the perfect society. Because otherwise, you know, we're wrong. If we can't fix all of humanity's problems right here in this thread, we are wrong and xarthaz is right.
Is this really how the Austrian School develops minds to defend its ideas, xarthaz? What an anti-intellectual movement the Austrian School must be if you are typical of the kind of thinking it produces.
If you reject a universal (nonsubjective) definition on safety, an argument of appeal to safety cannot be the justification of the rawsome bust.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
try reading the regulation/legislation and the minimal safety standards it requires.
On August 07 2011 12:03 xarthaz wrote: Okay then. The burden is on you guys. Youre the ones that are advancing the safety argument(as the justification of the rawsome slam bust). It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it, hence rendering it an unusable standard.
My pleasure:
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009 ; 483-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009; 6 : 793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)) :1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
That does not define the question at hand. The question at hand is justification of the action(of rawsome bust), not description of the action employed to do it.
Incorrect. The question at hand:
"It is up to you to define what in fact safety means, and what methodology for this definition is to be employed in order to avoid possible extreme example as i posted to be compliant with it"
P.S. is English your second language? Just curious
1) the rawsome bust was due to noncompliance with FDA regulation 2) your long-winded argument - the one i'm addressing here - centered around the safety of raw milk. it had utterly nothing to do with the rawsome bust. caught you dead in your confusion, haven't I?
seriously, you need to stop conflating situations and merging your arguments. you are a mindfuck. it's getting really, really annoying. i'm not sure why no one has punished you for such flagrant trolling
If you reject a universal (nonsubjective) definition on safety, an argument of appeal to safety cannot be the justification of the rawsome bust.
Of course it can be, through the method I mentioned in the very first paragraph of my quote. Did I say can be? I meant is, because I was talking about the real world, not your fantasy world of bad premises and bad logic.
Nonsubjective definitions are impossible, this is why some people agree with something and some people disagree, this is why there are winners and losers, being a part of the perpetual losers of the political contest in the real world you should know that. Society is too complex and interdependent to be maintained in an atmosphere of absolute individual autonomy, just as it is too dependent on a great degree of individual initiative to be maintained in an atmosphere where the individual is regarded as a cog in a machine.
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
FallDownMarigold: the FDA regulation is only a means to a further ends, not the ultimate ends, that much the statists agree upon, right. And the ultimate ends, in this thread, has been presented as being safety, hence the argumentation i have employed.
And all you've ended up doing is showing how contradictory and absurd you are
And also prone to dissolving into incoherence
The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
If only you were capable of showing this, your brain-in-a-jar attempt to do so was pretty bad.
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote: Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
A lot of people seem to be arguing that if the cows are on a small farm, or eating grass, or whatever ideal conditions you want, then maybe raw milk would be okay.
Well, 100 years ago, dairy farming was a lot more like that. But here is what happened in 1898:
The final proof of the benefits of pasteurized milk came when Straus began providing milk to an orphanage that had seen death rates as high as 42% from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases. The orphanage was located on Randall’s Island in the East River. All the milk it used was provided by a single herd of cows kept on the island, so it was easy to control the milk the orphans drank.
Straus started pasteurizing the orphanage’s milk in 1898. Within a year, the mortality rate dropped to 28%, and continued downward in the years that followed.
So, the risks of raw milk are not specific to modern dairy farming. I'm not saying they're helping anything (there are certainly problems with the agriculture industry), but even under "ideal" dairy farming conditions, raw milk still transmits deadly, contagious diseases.
Note: this quote came from a quick search, and was used as a good illustrative example. This same information can be found in verifiable (but more dry) resources as well.
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field.
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote: Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
Brain in chamber is more safe than brain in hazardous world environment, is it not correct? Where is the error then. You yourself admitted that that FDA public policy follows from safety.
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote: Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
Brain in chamber is more safe than brain in hazardous world environment, is it not correct? Where is the error then. You yourself admitted that that FDA public policy follows from safety.
It's an absurd extreme that takes no moderation into account. A brain in a chamber would obviously have all sorts of terrible inconveniences associated with it, some of which would lead to decreased safety in other areas.
You know what? This is ridiculous. Fuck you (for being such a flagrant troll), I'm done. Bye
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field.
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote: Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
Again, argument shifted. No longer is the argument for support of government action an appeal to safety. Now, it is instead an appeal to authority, or experts. If a government funded group of certified experts valued you or your family as threats to state and were to be eliminated, would you then too support this action?
You make your own trap gentlemen. You appeal to a universal truth that you cannot hope to be able to defend. It is easy to find a weak spot and target it, rendering the argument questionable.
Safety is an idea of subjective value that varies from person to person, who come together into a communal organization and project their own subjective values for safety into the public arena for acceptance or rejection as a general standard for society.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
Says who? In the case of FDA regulation, it is sufficient to have a group of HEALTH/MEDICAL EXPERTS deem what is safe. Their definition of what is safe could be very different from what, say, a military avionic expert's definition of safe is in his respective field.
On August 07 2011 12:19 xarthaz wrote: Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goall.
Your fallacy is that you take the concept of safety ad extremum. You can't just do that and call it "absurd". That action alone is absurd. The "unanimous opinion" of health experts is that raw milk is less safe than treated milk. FDA therefore requires vendors selling in public stores with government licenses to adhere to not selling a product deemed unsafe.
Your attempt to disqualify this notion is based on taking the concept of safety ad extremum, which is completely fallacious. Of course the "brain in a bubble" is preposterous. That doesn't prove that any level of 'safety' is preposterous. Seriously, get out.
Again, argument shifted. No longer is the argument for support of government action an appeal to safety. Now, it is instead an appeal to authority, or experts. If a government funded group of certified experts valued you or your family as threats to state and were to be eliminated, would you then too support this action?
You make your own trap gentlemen. You appeal to a universal truth that you cannot hope to be able to defend. It is easy to find a weak spot and target it, rendering the argument questionable.
No. You shifted the argument. It's not an appeal to authority. There is tons of research laid out for you. You can refute it if you like - but you haven't, nor will you. You led us all on this retarded tangent. Cya.
So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
And when he can't refute the evidence provided by others, he shifts his argument elsewhere, and obfuscates the entire situation with absurd pseudo-intellectual crap. Just leave him alone. Quit feeding the troll.
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goal.
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
And when he can't refute the evidence provided by others, he shifts his argument elsewhere, and obfuscates the entire situation with absurd pseudo-intellectual crap. Just leave him alone. Quit feeding the troll.
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such. Or in this case, it has relevance BECAUSE it shows public policy being in support of the real end, safety. That is the goal of the policy. Science is only a tool for it. My posts have been ignoring the science part for good reason, because they go straight for the root (safety as an ends of public policy)rather than the tools it uses.
It is not a tangent to the thread, it is the very root of the thread. It is the fundamental ends whose purpose science serves, and whom can be addressed directly, bypassing the science.
This is an uncommon approach though, and somewhat abstract and difficult to understand for those not used to debate revolving it so it takes a bit of thinking to grasp well.
On August 07 2011 12:45 xarthaz wrote: No, to reiterate,
Since the first posts this thread has been about justifying the actions of the government in making this violent raid to private enterprise. Appeal to safety has been the main argument. The point of my posts is to show the absurd, contradictory notion of safety as a public policy goal. The main way to show this is that every conceivable strict definition of safety must imply absurd perverse goals that originally were not intented, as such making safety an unwanted policy goal.
What about justifying the actions of the government based on the fact that this guy broke the law? Whether you agree with a law or not, you are expected to abide by them. Your personal feelings about the law or the rationale behind it is really irrelevant to the discussion. We can't have a society where people decide on an individual level which laws they want to follow based on their personal beliefs or feelings. If you disagree with a law or regulation, there are proper way to go about fighting it. Blatantly violating it isn't isn't one of them.
This isn't about organic foods. It isn't about food safety or whatever. It's about a guy that tried to ignore the system and got burned by doing so. Sure, questions can be raised about how exactly the government should have gone about stopping his actions and whether a raid was necessary or excessive, but that's about it. Arguing about the differences between raw milk and pasteurized milk or corruption in the FDA is just deflecting the discussion from the actual issue at hand.
On August 07 2011 12:27 bakesale wrote: A lot of people seem to be arguing that if the cows are on a small farm, or eating grass, or whatever ideal conditions you want, then maybe raw milk would be okay.
Well, 100 years ago, dairy farming was a lot more like that. But here is what happened in 1898:
The final proof of the benefits of pasteurized milk came when Straus began providing milk to an orphanage that had seen death rates as high as 42% from tuberculosis and other milk-borne diseases. The orphanage was located on Randall’s Island in the East River. All the milk it used was provided by a single herd of cows kept on the island, so it was easy to control the milk the orphans drank.
Straus started pasteurizing the orphanage’s milk in 1898. Within a year, the mortality rate dropped to 28%, and continued downward in the years that followed.
So, the risks of raw milk are not specific to modern dairy farming. I'm not saying they're helping anything (there are certainly problems with the agriculture industry), but even under "ideal" dairy farming conditions, raw milk still transmits deadly, contagious diseases.
Note: this quote came from a quick search, and was used as a good illustrative example. This same information can be found in verifiable (but more dry) resources as well.
People live in a fantasy bubble. They think because people aren't dropping dead left and right from the stuff that used to kill people en masse, that the danger is gone and they shouldn't bother with those annoying safety procedures that were instituted to get rid of the danger.
Raw milk is more dangerous than pasteurized milk. You can get organic pasteurized milk no problem, so it has nothing to do with organic. We're trading taste for safety. It's a pretty damn good trade.
If people want to risk drinking raw milk then so be it. While were at it lets legalize marijuana since that is something that can only hurt the people who use it. No sense in taking away the rights from people to do things that may or may not only hurt themselves.
That is nice and all, but for the question of current debate it is necessary to have a strict, testable definition, as to establish whether a given government action meets the conditions of being a policy tool for that end, or not.
No it sadly isn't necessary just because you say so
It isn't necessary at all, it would be impossible to function as a society if each function had to be strictly defined and testable the way xarthaz says it must be, we'd spend all our time arguing over definitions and the methodology of the testing and the validity of the analysis of the results. So instead we use the competition of ideas in the political marketplace.
Why are you so against a free political marketplace xarthaz?
And testable? You're the one who says tested evidence is irrelevant when it suits you, you're the one whose entire system of thought is predicated upon the idea that a priori rationalizations are superior to empirical evidence, but now you're demanding something be testable? You, the person who said this:
Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such.
Is now demanding that the ideas of your opponents be "testable"? That's laughable.
Make up your mind, it's easy to see why you're being called a troll. You'll say whatever you need to say at the moment to preserve your sense of being right, doesn't matter what you said last post or 5 posts ago.
Apparently each of your statements exists in a vacuum and it doesn't matter if you contradict yourself.
Is that the kind of irrefutable self-evident truths praxeology talks about?
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
And when he can't refute the evidence provided by others, he shifts his argument elsewhere, and obfuscates the entire situation with absurd pseudo-intellectual crap. Just leave him alone. Quit feeding the troll.
On August 07 2011 12:39 Grunor wrote: So the basic premise of your argument is that people must make their own decisions on what is safe or unsafe and act on that information, correct? rather then accepting documented and verifiable evidence provided by others.
Scientific proof only has relevance when one values it as such. Or in this case, it has relevance BECAUSE it shows public policy being in support of the real end, safety. That is the goal of the policy. Science is only a tool for it. My posts have been ignoring the science part for good reason, because they go straight for the root (safety as an ends of public policy)rather than the tools it uses.
It is not a tangent to the thread, it is the very root of the thread. It is the fundamental ends whose purpose science serves, and whom can be addressed directly, bypassing the science.
This is an uncommon approach though, and somewhat abstract and difficult to understand for those not used to debate revolving it so it takes a bit of thinking to grasp well.
I'm trying so hard to just walk away, but each time I peek in, I see something just so...wrong, by you.
Let me set you straight. I'm part of a plastic surgery research lab right now in Boston studying craniofacial development and malformations - and I find it offensive that you call science a "tool" for policy. Let's get real fucking clear on one thing: science is not all about pleasing a policy. Its relevance is not dictated by the value one ascribes to it. There are scientists that are persuaded by money; however, these scientists do not hold up under the scrutiny of the scientific community if their results are not genuine science. You do not have ANY CLUE what you are talking about with regard to science or the scientific method. You are proving yourself to be nothing more than a tin-hat, conspiracy-believing, blithering idiot.
Scientific findings lead to reactions. In this case, a French chemist found that pasteurizing milk mitigates many milk-borne illnesses. As a result, policy formed around regulating the sale of unpasteurized milk. Get that through your fucking skull because you are now being downright offensive. Stop it. Quit spreading bull shit lies to people that may not have the privilege of knowing otherwise. Research and scientists that are respected by the scientific community are not frauds that seek to please a policymaker. That stuff exists to a small degree, but by no means does it drive the majority of scientific research.
What you say is not only patently untrue, but it is downright offensive to somebody like me. Stop it. Science does not have a relevance based upon one's value assigned to it. It has a value based upon its inherent truth, as proven by its repeatability and durability under criticism.
It is the fundamental ends whose purpose science serves, and whom can be addressed directly, bypassing the science.
So is science a tool or not?
A tool that doesn't need to be used in any conceivable situation (which you say is the case here with science and public policy) is not a tool, it is a useless lump of metal.
lol. you guys are still at it with him? you arent going to convince him of anything (assuming he isnt just trolling you). don't waste your breath (or in this case typing).
Really now? People are blowing this incident up into a spectre of dictorial government?
1. Health standards and laws exist on milk because the scientific consensus is that un-pasteurized milk is likely to have bacteria that can be dangerous to health.
2. These laws are public knowledge, and farmers should be especially informed about them.
3. This place broke those laws, thus endangering people's health
4. So they get shut down.
This is really more an example of good laws being enforced.
On August 07 2011 13:24 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. you guys are still at it with him? you arent going to convince him of anything (assuming he isnt just trolling you). don't waste your breath (or in this case typing).
I keep poking in, hoping to only read, but I keep finding myself unable to let his bullshit go unscathed. Undoubtedly there are people reading what he writes and taking it for truth if it goes uncontested. That's not right
On August 07 2011 13:24 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. you guys are still at it with him? you arent going to convince him of anything (assuming he isnt just trolling you). don't waste your breath (or in this case typing).
I keep poking in, hoping to only read, but I keep finding myself unable to let his bullshit go unscathed. Undoubtedly there are people reading what he writes and taking it for truth if it goes uncontested. That's not right
if people take his posts for truth, we have much more than non-pasteurized milk to worry about.
On August 07 2011 13:24 dAPhREAk wrote: lol. you guys are still at it with him? you arent going to convince him of anything (assuming he isnt just trolling you). don't waste your breath (or in this case typing).
I keep poking in, hoping to only read, but I keep finding myself unable to let his bullshit go unscathed. Undoubtedly there are people reading what he writes and taking it for truth if it goes uncontested. That's not right
if people take his posts for truth, we have much more than non-pasteurized milk to worry about.
Its not that we have anything to worry about, its just that people that don't know much about the topic will accept what they read as truth... And we can't allow that. Hes trolling in a way that makes it seem as if he saying something of importance. Once again I thank you FallDownMarigold for keeping this thread in check.
On August 07 2011 13:07 ClanRH.TV wrote: If people want to risk drinking raw milk then so be it. While were at it lets legalize marijuana since that is something that can only hurt the people who use it. No sense in taking away the rights from people to do things that may or may not only hurt themselves.
Read the previous discussion, it is not harming only the individual. Raw milk transmits deadly, contagious diseases.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
You'll find lots of people who disagree and view Omega 3 as a scam.
My personal view on all of the Omegas, not just 3s are good for your health. Its a relatively a new concept, but the medical world is slowly, but truly beginning to realize their significance. I'm no expert on the subject so here is a link that may explain some things. I got this link after watching a world renown doctor talk about it on the the Dr. Oz show, Omega 3
I literarily grew up drinking boiled goat's milk from the yard so please don't bore me with exagerated claims of how dangerous some milk is. Besides the point in my post was it's safe as long as you boil it and the reason it's not allowed in some countries is that you don't want imbecils killing themselves with sour milk.
Since you're such a well documented fellow throw us a few links with people geting e coli and dieing from cow's milk.
On August 07 2011 06:25 Cyba wrote: At any rate nobody will ever die of drinkin a lil bad milk and it's certainly a really good product if you handle it right.
That beeing said the police just did their job maybe with a little too much passion, the legislation is idd retarded but that's just because most people are too and in the US they seem to love to sue.
Do more research on the topic before you make assumptions my friend. Foodborne Illness.
E. Coli O157:H7 is a relativity new strain which is extremely virulent.
We have to remember that bacteria and viruses are always genetically mutating(at extremely fast rates, faster then we can deal with them as health professionals). What this means for us is that we have to take preventative measures in order to ensure none of these new pathogens gets into our food supply.
I guarantee you there will be more antibiotic resistant and more virulent strains of microbes in the near future and when an epidemic (Or God forbid pandemic occurs), and people die, they will once again blame the government for not doing enough to prevent it. If an epidemic is detoured though, no one will know, and no one will receive praise, but as long as everyone is unharmed, that is enough satisfaction for me.
Also, how can you assume that the milk will be handled safely? The answer is you can't , so the best advice and preventative measures a company can do is to pasteurize the milk. It will cost them more upfront, but save them millions in possible cases where people can get very sick.
Honestly there should not even be an argument on pasteurization. Its almost as absurd as saying people should drink unfiltered turbid water. You filter water to clean up the bad stuff in the same way you heat up (or pasteurize) the milk to kill the bad stuff. The list goes on, that's why people rarely die from cholera in the developed world, in the same sense why people die from cholera in third world countries.
Edit:
On August 07 2011 06:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Omega 3's *definitely* promote health.
You'll find lots of people who disagree and view Omega 3 as a scam.
My personal view on all of the Omegas, not just 3s are good for your health. Its a relatively a new concept, but the medical world is slowly, but truly beginning to realize their significance. I'm no expert on the subject so here is a link that may explain some things. I got this link after watching a world renown doctor talk about it on the the Dr. Oz show, Omega 3
I literarily grew up drinking boiled goat's milk from the yard so please don't bore me with exagerated claims of how dangerous some milk is. Besides the point in my post was it's safe as long as you boil it and the reason it's not allowed in some countries is that you don't want imbecils killing themselves with sour milk.
Since you're such a well documented fellow throw us a few links with people geting e coli and dieing from cow's milk.
Ah, the tried and true personal anecdote argument. Let me tell you a story, since apparently it's story time:
"I literarily grew up smoking hand-rolled cigarettes from the garden in the yard so please don't bore me with exagerated claims of how dangerous some cigarettes are. Besides the point in my post was it's safe as long as you take most of the carcinogens out and the reason it's not allowed in some countries is that you don't want imbecils killing themselves with too much cancer."
In all seriousness, read the attached review, then refer yourself to the 12 sources listed. And please, for the record, sour milk has nothing to do with whether or not it was pasteurized. Pasteurized milk can still go bad, lol.
An increasing number of health-conscious consumers are seeking natural, unprocessed foods, including fresh, locally grown produce, eggs, poultry, and meats. Concomitant with this consumer interest, the US Department of Agriculture created Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food and the Farmers Market Promotion Program [1, 2]. These governmental programs seek to improve nutritional choices made by Americans with the goal to reduce the incidence of obesity, diabetes mellitus, and other chronic illnesses [3]. However, in the midst of trends toward choosing less processed foods is a growing consumer demand for raw (unpasteurized) dairy products. Advocates promote raw milk for its better taste and purported health benefits and as a way for consumers to support small dairies and local agriculture. At the same time, the public health community speaks in a nearly unanimous voice to warn consumers, farmers, and retail stores that sell the products about the significant health risks associated with raw milk consumption.
These risks are well documented and include numerous foodborne disease outbreaks and illnesses linked to consumption of contaminated raw milk or products made from raw milk [4, 5]. LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz [4] reviewed the hazards associated with raw milk consumption and pointed out that in the 21st century dairy products are responsible for <1% of reported foodborne disease outbreaks in the United States. In contrast, milkborne outbreaks comprised 25% of all disease outbreaks due to contaminated food and water in the early 1900s. The vast reduction in milk-related illnesses during this period is attributed to the implementation of pasteurization as a processing step and improved sanitation and refrigeration throughout the production chain. In addition, domestically acquired milkborne tuberculosis and brucellosis have been virtually eliminated because of concerted efforts to control these diseases in the nation's cattle herds.
The study by Guh et al [6] describes the severe health consequences and costs associated with a single Escherichia coli O157 outbreak linked to commercial raw milk. Although dairy products as a group are generally considered low risk in the epidemiology of E. coli O157 [7], reports of hospitalizations and complications, such as hemolytic uremic syndrome, associated with contaminated raw milk appear to be on the rise, especially among children [6, 8–10]. Findings from this investigation also highlight the importance of secondary and tertiary transmission of E. coli O157 wherein one child that drank raw milk subsequently infected a sibling, who was then the source of infection for a third child. Advocates of raw milk frequently argue that consumption of raw milk is a personal choice, but this outbreak shows that it can be the source of a communicable disease with the potential to spread to non-raw milk drinkers. The authors are to be commended for including an economic analysis associated with this outbreak, which revealed more than $400,000 in medical and public health expenses. It would be beneficial if cost calculations became routine in foodborne outbreak reports.
This outbreak occurred in Connecticut, a state where retail and on-farm raw milk sales are legal. The US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new Healthy People 2020 goal to “increase the number of states that have prohibited sale or distribution of unpasteurized dairy products” [11, p FS-3]. Although prohibition of raw milk sales and distribution is an effective intervention strategy, the authors duly note that proposed regulations to restrict retail raw milk sales in Connecticut after this outbreak failed because of strong public opposition and lack of political will. Despite a wealth of scientific data supporting the effectiveness of pasteurization in protecting the public from milkborne illness, there is a presumably small but vocal segment of the population that desires to consume raw dairy products. In lieu of bans, regulatory standards and education may be the best approaches to protect the public from exposure to contaminated raw milk. Regulations should include provisions such as pathogen testing, sanitation standards, and warning labels. The authors state, “Notably, contamination occurred despite acceptable milking and sanitation procedures, according to regulatory standards” [6, p 1415]. This finding suggests that there is a need for more research into best management practices for raw dairy production to reduce the risk of contamination in states where prohibition is not an option.
In addition to regulation, education is critical. Experts in infectious diseases are in the unique position to provide leadership in educating consumers, farmers, lawmakers, and the media about the relative risks of consuming raw milk. However, education efforts must be relevant to the population likely to seek commercial raw dairy products, a group that has been described as health-conscious, well-educated adults [12]. For those who value the perceived “probiotic” bacteria in raw milk and eschew processed foods, messages promoting pasteurization or even alternatives to pasteurization, such as filtration, sonication, and irradiation, are not likely to be effective. In addition, within the raw milk movement is a distrust of conventional medicine, agriculture, and government, somewhat analogous to the vaccination controversy. Because many people today visit the Internet for information on health and nutrition, communication strategies such asWeb sites and social media are becoming important tools for risk communication (for an example, visit http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com).
In summary, it is important for health professionals to educate themselves about the debate surrounding raw milk consumption and be prepared to answer questions from the public about both safety and health benefit claims.
US Department of Agriculture. Farmers market promotion program. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/fmpp/. Updated 2 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. 6th ed. Washington, DC: US Dept of Health and Human Services; January 2005.
Lejeune JT, Rajala-Schultz PJ. Food safety: unpasteurized milk: a continued public health threat. Clin Infect Dis 2009;48: 93-100.
Oliver SP, Boor KJ, Murphy SC, Murinda SE. Food safety hazards associated with consumption of raw milk. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2009;6:793-806.
Guh A, Phan Q, Nelson R,et al. Outbreak of Escherichia coli O157 associated with raw milk, Connecticut, 2008. Clin Infect Dis 2010;51((12)):1411-1417. (in this issue).
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infections in children associated with raw milk and raw colostrum form cows—California, 2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2008;57:625-628.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Escherichia coli O157:H7 infection associated with drinking raw milk—Washington and Oregon, November-December 2005. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2007;56:166-167.
Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Health. Investigation into E. coli O157:H7 illnesses and raw milk consumption from Hartmann farm (June 2010). http://www.health.state.mn.us/foodsafety/alert/ecoli0610.html/. Updated 21 July 2010. Accessed 20 August 2010.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Proposed Healthy People 2020 objectives (food safety). . Updated 30 October 2009. Accessed 20 August 2010.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk (source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk (source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year)
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
*1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
Yep. It's all because of the all-powerful dairy lobby. Those scientists and their independently corroborated findings sought out of scientific pursuit and curiosity? Nah, it's really just a farce to keep the small man down. Down with the guvernmint
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
I'm pretty sure you're exaggerating about your claims regarding Red Lobster and if you're not, you've got terrible luck.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
Yep. It's all because of the all-powerful dairy lobby. Those scientists and their independently corroborated findings sought out of scientific pursuit and curiosity? Nah, it's really just a farce to keep the small man down. Down with the guvernmint
/tinhat
good argument. rather than dealing with logic, you resort to labelling the person making the argument.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
Yep. It's all because of the all-powerful dairy lobby. Those scientists and their independently corroborated findings sought out of scientific pursuit and curiosity? Nah, it's really just a farce to keep the small man down. Down with the guvernmint
/tinhat
good argument. rather than dealing with logic, you resort to labelling the person making the argument.
/ignore
Na. I have no patience for you. There were already about 10 pages posted discussing the issue, including plenty of juicy facts/research. Where's your proof concerning that it's all a lobby-driven farce? Burden's on you, buddy.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. (source )
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk. (source )
Still awaiting rigorous proof that all the scientific data previously provided via PubMed, etc - here in this thread - is irrelevant in the face of the alleged preeminent issue of lobbying and trickery. Don't bother posting an article or something from a blog. I want a legitimate analysis, of similar quality to the stuff posted earlier in this thread, detailing the specifics of how milk is regulated not because of health outlays, but rather because of teh_lobbyz.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk (source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk (source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year)
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
*1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death.
For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it.
Thank you FallDownMarigold, I was going to attempt the literature hunting but that was just...magnificent. A good moral to this story is that first-hand experience does not equate to sufficient evidence. Here is the reason why:
When looking at something like foodborne illness, it may be that only one in every hundred million products will result in an infection. If you are a single family comsuming enough to equate to roughly 10,000 units of product over your life, your family has approximately a 1 in 1,000 chance of infection. If you take 1,000 families though, you suddenly see a very high chance of someone in one of those families contracting an infection.
That entire thought experiment assumed completely independant products, so there was no "mixing" of products to transmit the disease to more products. I can guarentee you that this ideal situation has unrealistic assumptions. Products do mix and there is always a chance of contagion hopping ship from one thing to another. This further increases the chances of potential infection on the consumer side.
So to summarize, even though you grew up drinking boiled goats milk, it is still not safe for consumption. You may have had no problems but I can guarentee you that treating milk in accordance to US federal guidelines makes it much safer for consumption than just boiling it.
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.
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."
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
And look, Caradoc, if you're going to play on the side of raw milk proponents, that's totally fine. Let me suggest, however, that you adhere to their strongest arguments.
1) Pasteurization induces a degree of nutrient breakdown/loss in milk, and proteolysis/hydrolysis of beneficial enzymes.
2) Pasteurization induces apoptosis of beneficial bacteria in addition to harmful bacteria.
Your argument instead focuses on some kind of conspiracy-esque nature of "lobbyists" and such that really holds no weight. You'd be better suited to stick to what might actually be verifiable with proper research (although unlikely). Currently, both of those arguments aren't strongly supported given current data, but it's a more reasonable school of thought than this "da man wants ter keep da farmers down" bullshit. Sorry to be blunt.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk (source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk (source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year)
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
*1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death.
For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it.
if you read the source, its 3% consume raw milk.
alright then though, so you add 137 to the original 42, assuming that none are cross reported, and you still have 179 out of 9 million, which is still ridiculously low compared to illness from other sources.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
so whats the point?
I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread)
The point of talking here is to delineate the reality of the situation, that the regulatory framework reflects at times profit rather than evidence based science and/or the public good.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
so whats the point?
I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread)
hell yeah; we are in agreement. now lets go watch the colbert report. because that guy is (r)awesome.
edit: lol, raw milk has certain frequencies based on credible scientific evidence. rawesome employees got their facts straight!
Serious bacteria can come from dairy that hasn't been stored, treated, and transported in proper methods. The diseases they cause can spread to other people. You can get some pretty nasty stuff spreading through the population before you realize where the source is from.
This is why the FDA cracks down so hard on places that do not follow public health guidelines.
You understand that drug use can be a public hazard. Well, the danger from unchecked disease is a greater threat to humans than some random junkies wandering around. That's why they shut this place down.
Imagine the outrage if the FDA and CDC didn't shut this place down and then some epidemic spread from the foods this place was selling. Then we'd see an article on TL.net on how incompetent the government is for not preventing the epidemic.
On August 07 2011 15:05 caradoc wrote: The point of talking here is to delineate the reality of the situation, that the regulatory framework reflects profit rather than evidence based science and/or the public good.
That is not the reality of the situation. That is what you think the reality is. Big difference. You've failed to rigorously prove your claim. You claim it's all about this ominous "the man" and lobbyists, yet you haven't shown anything substantial in support of this idea. Meanwhile, there have been pages and pages of readily verifiable scientific research highlighting that, in fact, evidence-based science DOES show that it's unhealthy. Your meager dabbling in a few statistics doesn't really rebut all the research papers that have been posted.
I would just drop it; don't bother replying to this. Instead, if you want to support raw milk, focus on the more legitimate arguments in favor of it. Don't focus on nonsense.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk, there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk.
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
the majority of food poisoning cases are related to employees not washing their hands and getting feces on your food (e.coli). state and federal law mandates that employees wash their hands. thus, regulation is good (if followed).
the alleged poor small farmers in this particular instance refused to follow regulations and they were shut down for it. all of the other poor small farmers have complied with the laws, and low and behold (lord have mercy) they aren't being shut down. this isnt a poor small farmer vs big dairy lobby industry. both are regulated, and both will be shut down if they don't follow the rules.
yes, but the opportunity for making the rules is affected/influenced/determined by industry.
Like the whole soy bean milk fiasco they are trying with the FDA currently. You can't label it milk cuz its not milk. Its misleading consumers. bullshit. Its about a good they don't want competing with milk.
so? whats your point? do you want us to deregulate everything and you will continue to enjoy your shit-shrimp, or do you want regulations to be made? i, for one, would like to know that at least minimal safety measures have to be made for food i eat or drink (especially since i just realized my mexican queso is non-pasteurized).
false dichotomy.
The problem is the relative influence that certain groups have over public policy, not the question of regulation. Certain things should be regulated, it should be evidence based. I think we all agree with this.
In my opinion, the FDAs stance on raw milk is problematic (it's actually allowed in several states, including california, though the FDA has a 'stance' that it should not be ingested), especially when considered alongside the policies of other comparable Western countries (i.e. Germany, France, UK, where its consumed at a higher rate than in the US, without reports of ill effect), and also when considered alongside its stances on other items (i.e. the section on contaminants and adulterations, is arguably toothless compared to european legislation, to the benefit of herbicide/pesticide manufacturers). The pattern that emerges is a set of regulations that is very corporate friendly and not necessarily evidence based in all circumstances (i.e. the position on GMOs in foodstuffs, they actually ruled previously it was illegal to label something as non-GMO).
why do people keep resorting to using big words and logic terminology in this thread to get simple points across? the simple fact is that there are laws, this business refused to follow a law, and they were shut down for it. if you want to change the laws, you change the laws, you don't violate them. you may think the law is unjust but that is why our society has a way for challenging them (i.e., courts), which is routinely done.
so whats the point?
I don't dispute any of what you just said. (except maybe that the way of challenging them that you suggested is the best way, which is not necessarily true, but not the point of the thread)
hell yeah; we are in agreement. now lets go watch the colbert report. because that guy is (r)awesome.
haha, not on here, but he is funny.
this thread is rapidly turning into a pile of crap anyways.
On August 07 2011 14:35 caradoc wrote: this thread is so fucked up.
out of an estimated 9million people in the US drinking raw milk (source), there have been something like 42 annual illnesses associated with raw milk (source1, also see *1) (out of 48 million foodborne illnesses per year)
Thats like 1 in 214,000.
I dunno about you guys, but I get food poisoning from Red Lobster 2/3 of the times I've gone, I Don't see FDA agents busting their doors down with accompanying armed police teams, and flushing their shrimps down the toilet
Course, Red lobster isn't a collection of small farmers competing with a powerful dairy lobby industry either.
its for the children, won't someone protect the children from the misinformed parents!
bullshit its about the children. Its about FDA, corporate lobbyists, and profits.
*1 Stephen P. Oliver and others entitled “Food Safety Hazards Associated with Consumption of Raw milk, published in Foodborne Pathogens and Disease. Volume 6, Number 7, 2009
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death.
For all dairy products, 71% raw unpasteurized milk, which doesn't include cheese and other dairy products. It also doesn't include all the times people just felt like shit sick but not sick enough to go to a hospital so likely no one reported it.
if you read the source, its 3% consume raw milk.
alright then though, so you add 137 to the original 42, assuming that none are cross reported, and you still have 179 out of 9 million, which is still ridiculously low compared to illness from other sources.
It doesn't say that that 3% of Americans consume raw milk...
Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases),
71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases).
It says only 3% of outbreak related cases are from dairy, and 71% of those out breaks is from raw unpasteurized milk
It should also be noted that sense is only in out breaks not just illnesses my source makes a distinction between the two.
Unless you mean your source, in which case you cannot cross compare outbreak numbers in one study to the next they do not get from the same sources, i'm discounting your source because it's not from a .edu .org .gov nor do i have the publication at hand
Although precise data are not available, it is thought that less than 1% of milk sold to consumers in the United States has not been pasteurized.
It is talking specifically about raw unpasteurized milk, which is what is the issue at hand
From 1998 through 2008, 86 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,676 illnesses, 191 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.
It doesn't fit what you care about though which would be out of all food borne sickness, which is not what i care about as that's not exactly fair, i would compare it to other dairy products over the same period.
On August 07 2011 15:10 caradoc wrote: this thread is rapidly turning into a pile of crap anyways.
On the contrary, this thread began as crap, but is now resolved. In the process, many people have learned a lot about raw milk (including myself) and its associated risks.
Im glad to see the OP is conceding the point that the other side is presenting. Its always good to have rational and calm discussions between two sides that disagree and people acknowledging the good points to the other sides argument. People have to remember that no one is right about everything. Everyone holds many viewpoints that are misconceptions or are just plain wrong. Plus a lot of issues have no right and wrong answers but yet people pain these certain issues that way. I know myself that I personally hold views that are wrong (I just don't know their wrong). The important thing is to know when your wrong and being able to set aside your ego to admit when your wrong. This happens very very rarely on the internet though :\
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
To be clear, your conclusion is that public safety is, in fact, not a reasonable public policy goal because it is not attainable in all situations? Seriously? You might need to step back and think about whether that makes sense.
You are absolutely terrible at this, and the faux intellectualism you display does not make you more persuasive. Obviously no one has stated that the ONLY government goal should be the safety of people. Freedom is also an important goal, but government must weigh the effects of personal freedom against the potential harm to safety of others. There is a balancing act here. It's hard for me to believe that no one else has raised this as the prime issue, and it's why the "brain vessel" idea is so incredibly nonsensical. Everyone knows it is, but no one has explicitly said that the reason is that individual freedom, another government goal, would be totally destroyed.
So, since all normal people can recognize that governments must balance contradictory goals, the idea that "well, if you can't do it all the time, you shouldn't ever do it" is just inconceivable as a point of argumentation.
Look, I think I get the framework of your argument. In order for this raid to be justified, all of the following must be true:
1. The FDA was enforcing a valid law. 2. The law was made based upon science that supports it as beneficial to public health. 3. The government should make laws which benefit the public health
You appear to take issue with #3. Which is bizarre. Notice that it does not say "The government in all cases should enact the laws which ensure the most certain public safety." So far, this second statement is all that you have attacked. It is the only way that your extension to brain vessels makes any sense. However, it is not necessary to use this second formulation in the logical pattern I presented above. So, basically, you set up an unnecessary condition to the logical formulation, knocked it down, and claimed victory. You cannot simply introduce extraneous conditions such as your "in all circumstances without regard to other public good" without a good reason.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
A similar thing happened in Alberta a few years back. A farmer went to court for the right to sell his raw milk, im pretty sure he won. We have a more rural culture in this province though, I doubt that would fly in Ontario or BC.
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
Quit selling out to pragmatism, have some principles.
I can't believe people are defending him, it's already been established his milk did not pass regulation and was thus dangerous for anyone that drank it. Would you allow me to sell poison in cans labeled "Milk"? No? Then why defend him when he does the same? There's a very, very good reason there's food regulation
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
By your logic you side with every illegal drugs dealer, except the drugs dealers are even morally better than the guy selling raw milk, because their customers actually know the dangers of consuming the products they're selling.
On August 07 2011 20:18 xM(Z wrote: ive been drinking raw milk for decades and ive never had problems with it. i dont like pasteurized one. it tastes like crap. just saying...
Drinking raw milk on a farm is one thing, selling it in large quantities is another.
I will agree selling raw milk in quantities is kinda sketchy its no different then when you had a milkman brink you fresh milk every morning just have to make sure that its fresh. it should be your decision what to do with your body imo. anymore it seems that people can't/don't want to take care of themselves so the government will do it for them. Raw milk is the best though anything fresh like that vegetables , eggs, meat(not raw of course), its all good stuff. being somewhat self sufficient is legit though most people don't get that luxury
On August 07 2011 22:17 chronomancer wrote: I will agree selling raw milk in quantities is kinda sketchy its no different then when you had a milkman brink you fresh milk every morning just have to make sure that its fresh. it should be your decision what to do with your body imo. anymore it seems that people can't/don't want to take care of themselves so the government will do it for them. Raw milk is the best though anything fresh like that vegetables , eggs, meat(not raw of course), its all good stuff. being somewhat self sufficient is legit though most people don't get that luxury
I find it ironic you say not raw meat when the dangers of raw meat are very similar to those of unpasteurized milk.
edit: This is to say, both can hold serious food borne illness if not properly handled, but can also be just fine most of the time. If there's a outright ban on consuming raw milk(which I don't think there is) then I would be against that.
Drinking raw milk on a farm is one thing, selling it in large quantities is another.
There were no "large quantities" being sold here. Rawesome is a very small operation--a private, members-only club that purchases small amounts of raw foods from a few local farmers to sell to its members. They have also been the target of unbelievable persecution (see guns-drawn raid in 2010 and purposeful, needless destruction of tens of thousands of dollars of produce and milk in that same raid). In both the 2010 and 2011 raids, LEOs were warranted to collect samples of Rawesome's food for testing; instead they confiscated or destroyed their inventory, and in last week's raid they first disabled the security cameras. Does any of this strike you as a bit odd? This isn't a case of responsible government moving in to contest unsafe farming practices--it's a case of countless resources being thrown away in the long-term persecution of a small group of hippies who are members of a private club.
The real source of the problem? A disagreement over the legality of the club's herdshare arrangements in which members of the club pay local farmers to board their dairy animals. California calls these arrangements unlicensed dairies; club members disagree. All subsequent persecution, including the armed raids, destruction of property, felony charges, and six-figure bails are the direct result of this disagreement: the federal government feels it is being cut out of the regulatory loop due to a direct relationship between consumer and farmer, and it refuses to accept that such a relationship might not be subject to its power. That's the nature of government, and we invite this kind of bullying when we provide it with sweeping regulatory power over anything, whether a tiny family farm or a private poker game.
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, which is precisely why the rest of the civilized world continues to enjoy it on a regular basis with no negative effects.
On August 07 2011 23:30 GreEny K wrote: Since the owner was not read his rights, does that make all of this illegal? I thought that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.
You and the OP have both been watching too much CSI and other cop dramas.
The cops are only required to read you your miranda rights before they interrogate you after you have been placed in custody.
Having your rights read to you when they arrest you is utterly irrelevant.
On August 07 2011 19:23 Equity213 wrote: A similar thing happened in Alberta a few years back. A farmer went to court for the right to sell his raw milk, im pretty sure he won. We have a more rural culture in this province though, I doubt that would fly in Ontario or BC.
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
Quit selling out to pragmatism, have some principles.
actually I'm from Alberta and I recently moved to Ontario-- if anything the farmers are more militant here about being able to sell their own produce locally, despite barriers, and theres a much stronger organization of people trying to make it happen-- I think its partly due to population-- theres actually a higher rural population in Ontario than Alberta, go figure.
On August 07 2011 19:34 BadgerBadger8264 wrote: I can't believe people are defending him, it's already been established his milk did not pass regulation and was thus dangerous for anyone that drank it. Would you allow me to sell poison in cans labeled "Milk"? No? Then why defend him when he does the same? There's a very, very good reason there's food regulation
Obviously I side with the business owner though. Morally whats worse, kidnapping someone and ruining their business, or selling raw milk?
By your logic you side with every illegal drugs dealer, except the drugs dealers are even morally better than the guy selling raw milk, because their customers actually know the dangers of consuming the products they're selling.
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance.
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance.
Have you even read a single page of this 21 page thread before contributing that utterly asinine statement? Get out.
We have been through how raw milk contains tons of bacteria and is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria including tuberculosis. It only takes a small amount of milk with TB to trigger a major epidemic in the region given cross contamination, human to human transmission, etc. Do we have to wait till the epidemic happens before we can take action or can we take action preemptively?
Also, just because it's dangerous doesn't mean that every person who ingests it has to have some sort of fatal infection. That would mean it's TOXIC. It's dangerous because of the inherently high risk. And people in this thread have already highlighted a number of cases where raw milk was responsible for a disease outbreak and how pasteurization helped solve the issues.
were there any reports of anyone being sick? no. how curious for such a dangerous substance.
Have you even read a single page of this 21 page thread before contributing that utterly asinine statement? Get out.
We have been through how raw milk contains tons of bacteria and is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria including tuberculosis. It only takes a small amount of milk with TB to trigger a major epidemic in the region given cross contamination, human to human transmission, etc. Do we have to wait till the epidemic happens before we can take action or can we take action preemptively?
Also, just because it's dangerous doesn't mean that every person who ingests it has to have some sort of fatal infection. That would mean it's TOXIC. It's dangerous because of the inherently high risk. And people in this thread have already highlighted a number of cases where raw milk was responsible for a disease outbreak and how pasteurization helped solve the issues.
Or are you just simply willfully ignorant....
everything contains bacteria. I've posted links as well as posted at length on how much of this argumentation doesn't hold water when the full range of evidence is considered.
I could use the same thing you've just said to respond to your post, but that isn't getting anywhere.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you haven't read the whole thread. I'm sure you've read posts that agree with your perspective, which is a good start, but hardly enough. So you'd best get started. =)
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings).
On August 07 2011 11:37 xarthaz wrote: Safety was the principle of their argument. It was the principle from which the "should" claim was to follow. Appeal to safety is like any other appeal, its arguing for something due to compliance to a principle, in this case, safety.
ok obviously we aren't robots and using a retard analogy like the brain crap makes no sense. everything choice we make is a judgement/value call. sometimes we have laws to protect people who aren't fully aware of the choices they are making, sometimes it's there for convenience (do you really want to have to read the label of every food product you buy?).
arguing on the principle that something is good or bad makes no sense because, unless you are 100% sure you are some objective, omniscient being, saying that buying raw milk is somehow "good" by principle makes 0 sense.
How does it not make sense? Would having one's brain in incubator not be the safest life possible? If it was, it necessarily follows that it is the policy course government should do, given the premise of what has been implicitly assumed by those engaged in the debate (that government should do what is safe to its people)
To be clear, your conclusion is that public safety is, in fact, not a reasonable public policy goal because it is not attainable in all situations? Seriously? You might need to step back and think about whether that makes sense.
You are absolutely terrible at this, and the faux intellectualism you display does not make you more persuasive. Obviously no one has stated that the ONLY government goal should be the safety of people. Freedom is also an important goal, but government must weigh the effects of personal freedom against the potential harm to safety of others. There is a balancing act here. It's hard for me to believe that no one else has raised this as the prime issue, and it's why the "brain vessel" idea is so incredibly nonsensical. Everyone knows it is, but no one has explicitly said that the reason is that individual freedom, another government goal, would be totally destroyed.
So, since all normal people can recognize that governments must balance contradictory goals, the idea that "well, if you can't do it all the time, you shouldn't ever do it" is just inconceivable as a point of argumentation.
Look, I think I get the framework of your argument. In order for this raid to be justified, all of the following must be true:
1. The FDA was enforcing a valid law. 2. The law was made based upon science that supports it as beneficial to public health. 3. The government should make laws which benefit the public health
You appear to take issue with #3. Which is bizarre. Notice that it does not say "The government in all cases should enact the laws which ensure the most certain public safety." So far, this second statement is all that you have attacked. It is the only way that your extension to brain vessels makes any sense. However, it is not necessary to use this second formulation in the logical pattern I presented above. So, basically, you set up an unnecessary condition to the logical formulation, knocked it down, and claimed victory. You cannot simply introduce extraneous conditions such as your "in all circumstances without regard to other public good" without a good reason.
Exactly.
I swear the OP in this thread was the most useless thing I have ever seen. It has resulted in over 20 pages of worthless argumentation when it comes down to some pretty basic facts (which the poster I am quoting outlines).
It is irrelevant whether or not you think drinking raw milk is safe or not... What is relevant is that this guy was selling milk which did not meet the criteria for sale as raw milk. There are a lot of ways and reasons it could *not* meet the criteria; I support having criteria instead of epidemics.
I don't care if any of you want to go drink raw milk. I do care if you want to drink unsafe raw milk and run the risk of fucking a bunch of people over.
Edit: the OP has been updated. Some of you should read it.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings).
He didn't do a great job though.
Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now.
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.
That abstract clearly says that the health effects are ambiguous and hence they want better indicators for future studies. I'm not sure why you think I'm trolling by pointing that out.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi".
I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
I love this guy, best posts in this thread imo haha
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi".
I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
good thing it's legal here and good thing we have an organization to regulate suppliers of raw milk so they adhere to health and safety standards. nah jk we hate organic food.
<3 how people keep saying "raw milk is safe" when what they mean is "raw pasteurized milk is safe."
Also, genetically modified foods aren't dangerous and if you are posting here saying so you're pretty much a liar. We've been eating them in large quantities for 15 years in the US with no ill effects, get over it and stop acting like you're concerned about health, you don't like corporations and capitalism and that's why you're repeatedly insisting things that aren't true.
To date, not a single instance of harm to human health has been documented with GM crops.
The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[7] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[8] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[1] A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[9] A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[10] However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[11] A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".[12][13] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[14][15][16] In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003).[17] However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years.[18][19] Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases.
I bet you guess the response of anti-GM zealots: "Corporations aren't letting people do real research!" Which is the last refuge of the demagogue when he has nowhere else to go: declare a conspiracy (all bets are now off) and double down on his nonsensical position. In fact:
They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.
Yup!
Don't you just love it when people try to substitute politics for science in scientific controversies?
Read the Wikipedia link and you will see just how fanatical and ridiculous anti-GM demagogues are; they will literally throw anything and everything against the wall just to see if it will stick.
Oh hey look what a big surprise, that study people keep mentioning about how GM foods stunted rat growth?
Yeah, it was probably bullshit (unless you were one of Pusztai's friends or The Lancet, the most inaccurate medical journal of the last 25 years, then it was alright. Funny how that works). I bet you never read about the controversy over it on any of the hundreds of well-funded anti-GM websites, right?
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings).
He didn't do a great job though.
Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now.
I find it ironic you say not raw meat when the dangers of raw meat are very similar to those of unpasteurized milk.
I have an oven and a stove in my house. I do not have the equipment required to pasteurise milk. You're seriously making this statement?
I'm pretty sure you're taking this out of context. He was comparing raw milk to that of other 'fresh' food products and specially mentioned raw meat not being as safe as the others. I thought it was kind of funny that he acknowledged the potential hazards of raw meat but not unpasteurized milk.
On August 08 2011 04:23 DeepElemBlues wrote: <3 how people keep saying "raw milk is safe" when what they mean is "raw pasteurized milk is safe."
Also, genetically modified foods aren't dangerous and if you are posting here saying so you're pretty much a liar. We've been eating them in large quantities for 15 years in the US with no ill effects, get over it and stop acting like you're concerned about health, you don't like corporations and capitalism and that's why you're repeatedly insisting things that aren't true.
The European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010 report on GMOs noted that "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies."[7] A 2008 review published by the Royal Society of Medicine noted that GM foods have been eaten by millions of people worldwide for over 15 years, with no reports of ill effects.[8] Similarly a 2004 report from the US National Academies of Sciences stated: "To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population."[1] A 2004 review of feeding trials in the Italian Journal of Animal Science found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants.[9] A 2005 review in Archives of Animal Nutrition concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to non-GM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with "significant changes in constituents" would be more difficult to test, and would require further animal studies.[10] However, a 2009 review in Nutrition Reviews found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause any detectable toxic effects in animals, some studies did report adverse changes at a cellular level caused by some GM foods, concluding that "More scientific effort and investigation is needed to ensure that consumption of GM foods is not likely to provoke any form of health problem".[11] A review published in 2009 by Dona and Arvanitoyannis concluded that "results of most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters".[12][13] However responses to this review in 2009 and 2010 note that the Dona and Arvanitoyannis concentrated on articles with an anti-GM bias that have been refuted by scientists in peer-reviewed articles elsewhere - for example the 35S promoter, stability of transgenes, antibiotic marker genes and the claims for toxic effects of GM foods.[14][15][16] In 2007, a review by Domingo of the toxicity by searching in the Publimed database using 12 search terms, cited 68 references, found that the "number of references" on the safety of GM/transgenic crops was "surprisingly limited" and questioned whether the safety of genetically modified food has been demonstrated; the review also remarked that its conclusions were in agreement with three earlier reviews by Zdunczyk (2001), Bakshi (2003), and Pryme and Lembcke (2003).[17] However, an article in 2007 by Vain found 692 research studies focusing on GM crop and food safety and identified a strong increase in the publication of such articles in recent years.[18][19] Vain commented that the multidisciplinarian nature of GM research complicates the retrieval of GM studies and requires using many search terms (he used more than 300) and multiple databases.
I bet you guess the response of anti-GM zealots: "Corporations aren't letting people do real research!" Which is the last refuge of the demagogue when he has nowhere else to go: declare a conspiracy (all bets are now off) and double down on his nonsensical position. In fact:
They also claim that truly independent research in these areas is systematically blocked by the GM corporations which own the GM seeds and reference materials.
Yup!
Don't you just love it when people try to substitute politics for science in scientific controversies?
Read the Wikipedia link and you will see just how fanatical and ridiculous anti-GM demagogues are; they will literally throw anything and everything against the wall just to see if it will stick.
Oh hey look what a big surprise, that study people keep mentioning about how GM foods stunted rat growth?
Yeah, it was probably bullshit (unless you were one of Pusztai's friends or The Lancet, the most inaccurate medical journal of the last 25 years, then it was alright. Funny how that works). I bet you never read about the controversy over it on any of the hundreds of well-funded anti-GM websites, right?
if you'd like to debate this in a separate thread, feel free to open one up.
if you'd like to debate this in a separate thread, feel free to open one up.
If other people are going to mention GM foods and spread misinformation I am going to reply to it.
If you'd like to lecture people on what you think is properly relevant posting, make your own forum where you can be King and lecture to yourself all day long if you want. Otherwise please shut up, who is this caradoc fellow to be talking to anyone like that, pretty rude of him
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
Very funny, what a great sarcasm. "hihihi".
I think the real problem as BrTarolg and caradoc noted are all the antibiotics and hormons that are fed to the cows to improve the quantity of milk being produced. I personally drink raw milk all my life and never had any problems with it. I buy it illegaly, because it is forbidden in my country too, but I do it on my own risk. If I get sick I wont blame anyone.
If you get sick you WILL have someone pay for the cost of the treatment (insurance company/society depending on where you are from) AND you'll take up a spot in the hospital - a spot which someone else could be in dire need of. It's nice of you not to blame anyone though...
The quality of the "I've been drinking raw milk my entire life and haven't had any problems" argument is compareable to chain-smokers going "I've been smoking 2 packs a day for 40 years and I haven't got cancer". It is really damn crappy... You could at least put in some effort and cite how the improved hygiene has led to some countries lifting the ban on unpastaurised cheese as an argument for safety. Anecdoctal evidence is COMPLETELY worthless.
For those of you saying raw milk is unsafe, you are basically looking at it completely the wrong way.
Let me tell you what is unsafe. American crops are grown in such a way that whilst GM can be effective and beneficial, the companies producing it will see that say, a strawberry has more nutrients, so they will then reduce the amount of nutrients they put into a strawberry to cut costs.
In particular, grain feed is grown in such a way that GM is used as an excuse to grow poor quality crops, that use the clutch of GM to cause the crops to be barely edible.
Cows and other produce are fed this grain, along with processed soy (which btw, you can't feed to any other animal - it makes them really sick and causes you to go sterile), in order to survive As a result, the clutch of pesticides and genetic modification allow the process to happen as it is the very literal meaning of "barely surviving" in the food industry. As opposed to using the technology to improve the quality of the food, they use the technology to CUT the quality of the food and as a clutch so it is just barely safe enough to pass food standards and end up on your plate
The cows as a result, are fed hormones to produce vast quantities of disease ridden, poor quality milk, that if you were to drink directly would be like drinking poison and would almost certainly kill you.
Thus pasteurization is absolutely and totally required otherwise the milk is 100% unsafe to drink. In the same way that pesticides, GM and other chemicals are absolutely required because the crops are farmed in an equally crappy way
---
Now on the other hand, cows, chickens and other produce that are fed GRASS, and do not eat grain, and avoid pesticides and GM, cannot rely on the clutch of technology. They are FORCED to farm their animals in such a way that produces healthy, disease free produce.
I do not object to GM food at all. In fact, i suspect highly that many of the tests showing GM food is potentially unsafe, is more to the fact that the farming practises used to produce that food is unsafe, not the actual process of GM at all.
Organic meat is healthier and better sourced, and is thus, MORE SAFE for me to consume. I don't have to worry about eating disease ridden meat or dairy, because i know organic food is that which is kept to the absolute highest of standards
Raw milk in particular, bought in the UK, has extremely stringent standards, and the cows are kept in the utmost pristine conditions as to produce the healthiest and highest quality milk possible. Thus i buy raw milk.
----
So i tell you, if you are happy to drink the milk that is TOTALLY unsafe and poisonous produced from badly kept cows, simply because it is pasteurised - is that a risk you want to take?
BREAKING NEWS: Bacteria considers how cows are being treated before incubating in their milk. More at 11.
He was likely referencing the fact that cattle raised in industrial settings are significantly more prone to infections due to both their compromised immune systems, and the fact that the conditions they are raised in are extremely prone to bacterial contamination, requiring the mass administering of antibiotics (and also causing the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in these settings).
He didn't do a great job though.
Pasteurization nearly eliminates any risk of bacterial growth whatsoever in a non-chemical way. Antibiotic-resistant strains do not belong in the discussion concerning pasteurization given that they confer no additional resistance to the procedure. Pasteurization is not an antibiotic. You're just confusing people now.
It would seem to me that there are three viewpoints in this thread. One is that raw milk is totally safe, one is that raw milk is safe if proper precautions are taken, and one that says raw milk is never safe. It would seem to me that since raw milk is legal if it is regulated, the second position is the correct one.
That being said, I do have a couple of curiosities at this point. Despite not having a proper license, is there any evidence to suggest that Rawesome foods did not take proper precautions with their food? I understand that selling raw milk without license is illegal, but I'm wondering if there is evidence to suggest that they were selling dangerous milk. It would certainly change things if for example they were not testing their milk or cows for disease, as is required by regulation.
From the description of their business in the news articles I would guess that they probably would sell you straight up raw milk if you wanted it and would sell you pasteurized raw milk if you wanted it. And that they were not running some slipshod operation. They seem like responsible dirty hippies
The problem I see with this thread is people don't seem to be reading it and then repeat what has been said before...
TL:DR: Read the entire thread, form your newly revised and more educated opinion, stop saying an inherently dangerous product is safe just because you use it, its not a great basis for truth, go take some microbiology classes, some pathology classes, and revert back to the thread and agree with the people that know raw milk is dangerous and go on with you merry life. Thank you.
On August 08 2011 10:38 NET wrote: The problem I see with this thread is people don't seem to be reading it and then repeat what has been said before...
TL:DR: Read the entire thread, form your newly revised and more educated opinion, stop saying an inherently dangerous product is safe just because you use it, its not a great basis for truth, go take some microbiology classes, some pathology classes, and revert back to the thread and agree with the people that know raw milk is dangerous and go on with you merry life. Thank you.
for someone telling people to read the thread, you should definitely read the thread. You've consistently ignored numerous counterexamples to your own singleminded stance.
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.
Of course you might make the argument that anyone that disagrees with you is stupid or ill-informed, and that evidence that isn't your own is problematic for reason X, Y, Z. That's fair, and that's why the thread is 20 pages+ long. You're allowed to do that, but if you want to summarize the thread, you should get out of your own head.
The law is that unprocessed milk is illegal. Its the police's job to enforce the law. Whats the problem here? If you have a problem with the law, you have to fight to have the law changed, not the way that it is enforced.
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 "are the reason 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.
Like this idiot who posted above me. "If it's a law it needz to be enforced hurrrrrrrr"
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 14:55 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 11:21 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
Don't know if it's been said but the train of thought that begins with "How dare the government x" is what created the Tea Party and given us so much grief. Granted, there are reasonable limits that the government sometimes goes over, but in cases like this, maybe we should just let the police take care of the hipsters and overzealous hippies so we don't have to deal with them.
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
Agreed, maybe they don't have a right to tell YOU what to drink, but they are responsible for all 300 millions lives in this country and if they feel something is unhealthy they have a right to act on something that could potentially harm masses of people.
Even if you are 100% positive and sure that it is not harmful, better safe than not right?
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.
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.
On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote: By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse.
source? I buy organics sometimes (mostly apples) and I can tell the difference. Just my opinion though: which is also how you should have prefaced your "fact".
What the hell? I'm British, we don't have raw milk here. I have never ever seen raw milk on sale in a shop, and I'm a pretentious bastard who frequents the sort of shop that might have it.
The French drink UHT for god's sake. You can barely call it milk, let alone raw milk. It also makes crap tea.
The only time I've ever had anything approximating raw milk was a non pasteurised cheese in France, which from what I've read - is both legal and consumed if not often then moderately frequently in the US.
On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote: By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse.
source? I buy organics sometimes (mostly apples) and I can tell the difference. Just my opinion though: which is also how you should have prefaced your "fact".
Yes thank you downing on organic/healthy food means nothing without source/facts. If that is your opinion it's perfectly fine just do not state it as such a true fact.
I whole-heartedly agree though that I can tell the difference as well. I am a runner and I normally have breathing problems/cramps on weeks where I eat foods considered 'bad or worse' for you as to when I eat more fruits and vegetable throughout the week I breathe better and cramp almost never.
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.
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.
On August 06 2011 14:34 Disquiet wrote: By the way organic food is a scam its +50% in price for absolutely no health benefit, and it usually tastes worse.
source? I buy organics sometimes (mostly apples) and I can tell the difference. Just my opinion though: which is also how you should have prefaced your "fact".
There was some post further up that linked the regulations for different kinds of milk. You can sell raw milk in the states, but you have to be the producer and you have to be certified.
The scam part is that "organic" gets slapped onto everything these days even when industrial production does not differ from organic production, because there is no different way to produce the good, there are two prices for the products. It's like your toast is called "whole wheat" because the law requires a product to contain 25% of whole wheat products to be called whole wheat.
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"
When it comes to "organic" foods its really up to the consumer to educate themselves.
I bought organic stuff from a farm collectve type thing in the UK that did boxes of what was fresh picked in the last few days. Although they touted the "organic" heavily the lack of a long supply chain meant the stuff arrived fresh. It was fucking delicious too, the difference was night and day compared to stuff you would buy out of a supermarket that had been shipped around the world 3 times while frozen.
Some "organic" stuff is a farce but if you get the right stuff it tastes waaaaay better. The only way to convince people that think otherwise would be to get them to try it. Your tastebuds would have to be dead for you not to see a dramatic difference.
On August 08 2011 18:00 Cold-Blood wrote:
I whole-heartedly agree though that I can tell the difference as well. I am a runner and I normally have breathing problems/cramps on weeks where I eat foods considered 'bad or worse' for you as to when I eat more fruits and vegetable throughout the week I breathe better and cramp almost never.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the organic or not debate. Most fruit and veg is farmed by non-organic means. It's really a case of good eating habits versus poorer ones.
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.
These 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.
On August 08 2011 17:39 lozarian wrote: "in europe they drink raw milk"?
What the hell? I'm British, we don't have raw milk here. I have never ever seen raw milk on sale in a shop, and I'm a pretentious bastard who frequents the sort of shop that might have it.
The French drink UHT for god's sake. You can barely call it milk, let alone raw milk. It also makes crap tea.
The only time I've ever had anything approximating raw milk was a non pasteurised cheese in France, which from what I've read - is both legal and consumed if not often then moderately frequently in the US.
You might have realized this by now but many Americans have a view of Europe as being a completely natural and pure and flawless socialist utopia.
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.
On August 08 2011 17:39 lozarian wrote: "in europe they drink raw milk"?
What the hell? I'm British, we don't have raw milk here. I have never ever seen raw milk on sale in a shop, and I'm a pretentious bastard who frequents the sort of shop that might have it.
The French drink UHT for god's sake. You can barely call it milk, let alone raw milk. It also makes crap tea.
The only time I've ever had anything approximating raw milk was a non pasteurised cheese in France, which from what I've read - is both legal and consumed if not often then moderately frequently in the US.
You might have realized this by now but many Americans have a view of Europe as being a completely natural and pure and flawless socialist utopia.
Oh right, I totally forgot about that, the air up here in my 10th century castle is a bit rarified, it affects my memory. Anyway, I'm off to a tea party with the queen where I'll have scones with raw milk cream, then it's off to have a pint of warm ale with Hugh Grant whilst flagrantly disregarding my much needed dental work and trying to avoid the garlic and frogs legs than Jaques insists on eating every day.
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.
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.
Organic food does not taste "better" than most "conventional" food. The diffrence is that people who buy "organic" actually tend to buy fresh stuff, not crap that has spent a good amount of it's live in some ship. Oh and then there is the psychological effect of something expensive being better...
The strawberries from my garden are leaps and bounds better than the ones I can buy in a shop, no matter if organic/biological or not... The main diffrence is, that the ones from my garden are at most 1-2 days old when I eat them and did not travel from spain, south africa or wherever to my place. They are also "better" than the ones from local production, because even here they are most likely just "fresher". I've grown them "organic" and "conventional"... Conventional won, you get more strawberries, less insects... You just get a better "product".
I've got tons of Veggies/Berries/Salads in my garden. Organic/Bio does nothing for the taste, more often than not you just have less to harvest and more insects with it... Naturally I'm not filling it up with hormones and truly "hard" stuff, but I wouldn't call the stuff I grow up Bio/Organic...
On August 08 2011 17:39 lozarian wrote: "in europe they drink raw milk"?
What the hell? I'm British, we don't have raw milk here. I have never ever seen raw milk on sale in a shop, and I'm a pretentious bastard who frequents the sort of shop that might have it.
The French drink UHT for god's sake. You can barely call it milk, let alone raw milk. It also makes crap tea.
The only time I've ever had anything approximating raw milk was a non pasteurised cheese in France, which from what I've read - is both legal and consumed if not often then moderately frequently in the US.
You might have realized this by now but many Americans have a view of Europe as being a completely natural and pure and flawless socialist utopia.
Oh right, I totally forgot about that, the air up here in my 10th century castle is a bit rarified, it affects my memory. Anyway, I'm off to a tea party with the queen where I'll have scones with raw milk cream, then it's off to have a pint of warm ale with Hugh Grant whilst flagrantly disregarding my much needed dental work and trying to avoid the garlic and frogs legs than Jaques insists on eating every day.
Do you people realize we have to be in a state in vulnerability to evolve ? I mean we are by nature vulnerable because any big natural disaster can just crush us , but we live in this false state of security .... It's commonly known that any organism , can be found in 2 states ..... vulnerable or defensive .... in the defensive state ( which we appear to be , with all the security and the cameras with 999999999 megapixels ) , organism can't evolve substantially .... A state is not responsible for the well-being of individuals ... The state is responsible for settling conflicts between individuals and making sure no1 is getting out of line hurting other people's fictional rights , also responsible with the infrastructure and relations with other states ... Probably there's a few more things the state is responsible but I'm sure in a so called free society the state shall not go in individual's private life to control his decisions about his all experiences and choices that in fact harm no other human being . Anyways it appears to everyone that the state has failed badly in the last few year with the corruption being just , well you see the economic state we're in ...
Getting off-topic badly but come on .... Our grand-fathers drank raw milk and we're still here .... I guess it's not that dangerous .... Then again Monstanto's putting patents on pigs .... Ok guys ff
Yeah, our forebears ate and drank raw milk and products thereof. They also thought asbestos was awesome and DDT was the answer to insects.
And had a 20 year lower life expectancy.
Traditional =/= better. Whilst partially the unpasteurised stuff can be dangerous, there's a significant part of it that we will just feel ill if we drink it, because we're not used to it. Even unpasteurised cheese can make one feel a little queasy.
I was hate replying to your post lozarion but I guess hate+reason really won't prove anything . Go compare diet with other topics . OH WELL . I'm not saying traditional is better , but consider this .... are we living better now with 1 out of 2.7 people getting cancer ? IS IT THE DIET + ENVIRONMENT ? OK DON'T DRINK RAW MILK , IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR 99 BILLION DEATHS , GO EAT ALL THE REGULATED FOOD TODAY WHICH WILL NOT MAKE 1 IN 2.7 PEOPLE GET CANCER . Life is simple , people complicate it to the point the general people will get confused which in fact we know the simplest way is the best way . Oh well ... I'm talking crap not FACTS
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
On August 08 2011 21:35 bOne7 wrote: I was hate replying to your post lozarion but I guess hate+reason really won't prove anything . Go compare diet with other topics . OH WELL . I'm not saying traditional is better , but consider this .... are we living better now with 1 out of 2.7 people getting cancer ? IS IT THE DIET + ENVIRONMENT ? OK DON'T DRINK RAW MILK , IT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR 99 BILLION DEATHS , GO EAT ALL THE REGULATED FOOD TODAY WHICH WILL NOT MAKE 1 IN 2.7 PEOPLE GET CANCER . Life is simple , people complicate it to the point the general people will get confused which in fact we know the simplest way is the best way . Oh well ... I'm talking crap not FACTS
Omg... Your writing such utter bullshit that it hurts to read it...
You know why cancer rates are higher nowadays? People get older, sooner or later you just die to something... Add into this that we actually "find" cancer nowadays and people don't just die "after sudden serious illness".
To make your argument even better... Ever heard of "the pest" which emptied half of europe due to people doing stuff "the simple way?"...
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
These 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.
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.
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 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 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 .
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 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.
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.
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 05:34 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.
a> Every single supplier of raw milk prides themselves on growing and rearing the best and healthiest cows possible b> the WHOLE POINT of the raw milk movement is to provide milk that is highly nutritious and have health benefits over traditional milk which CANNOT be drank raw
Its dangerous because its a foodstuff that goes off quickly (within a few days). So, don't leave it in your fridge for a week and then drink it for gods sake
Your totally right if you are saying that regular cows (and i use the word "regular" lightly here) are incapable of producing milk that can be safely drank raw. It is thus unsurprising that raw milk when tested (with traditional milk producing cows) is labelled as highly dangerous
I use raw milk as an indicator that since it can be drank raw safely, it is an indication of the high quality nature of the milk and the process that was used to create it
On August 09 2011 06:40 BrTarolg wrote: Raw milk tends to be handled carefully because
a> Every single supplier of raw milk prides themselves on growing and rearing the best and healthiest cows possible b> the WHOLE POINT of the raw milk movement is to provide milk that is highly nutritious and have health benefits over traditional milk which CANNOT be drank raw
Its dangerous because its a foodstuff that goes off quickly (within a few days). So, don't leave it in your fridge for a week and then drink it for gods sake
Your totally right if you are saying that regular cows (and i use the word "regular" lightly here) are incapable of producing milk that can be safely drank raw. It is thus unsurprising that raw milk when tested (with traditional milk producing cows) is labelled as highly dangerous
I use raw milk as an indicator that since it can be drank raw safely, it is an indication of the high quality nature of the milk and the process that was used to create it
"a> Every single supplier of raw milk prides themselves on growing and rearing the best and healthiest cows possible"
I do not doubt suppliers of raw milk pride themselves on their cows. I also do not doubt that suppliers of organic milk (Pasteurized or raw) also pride themselves on the health of their cows. The problem isn't whether they have pride or not, its if they know how to properly handle milk or not. Even a small contamination of cow feces could create an epidemic.
"b> the WHOLE POINT of the raw milk movement is to provide milk that is highly nutritious and have health benefits over traditional milk which CANNOT be drank raw"
Raw milk has natural occurring bacteria, some harmless, some NOT SO harmless. The risk is up to the user as is with tobacco smokers, etc. Just drink organic pasteurized if you are looking for "healthier" cow's milk which is actually PROVEN safer. If you want to see a list of what is found in raw milk refer back to previous posts in this thread.
If you really want to drink "healthier milk" just drink soy or almond milk, much better for you. But if you have your heart set on another mammal's breast milk, why not use the precautionary principle to help keep that milk, whether organic or not, safe? Unless you like taking unnecessary risks, which I don't mind(or care you doing personally), but its when those uneducated people give that "raw and "super food(In their minds)" (sarcasm)"" milk to their children, is when its an inherent problem.
Edit: "I use raw milk as an indicator that since it can be drank raw safely, it is an indication of the high quality nature of the milk and the process that was used to create it"
" Even with careful sanitation, it is nearly impossible to keep all dirt and fecal matter from getting into the raw milk. In addition, some cows might have udder infections that aren’t obvious to the dairy operator, but still can result in bacteria getting into the milk. The only scientifically proven way to ensure that disease-causing germs are eliminated from the milk that is sold to consumers is to pasteurize the milk."Raw Milk Facts (Post in OP)
My job is to make sure you learn that raw milk is not safe, I'm not here to argue, just teach.
On August 09 2011 06:40 BrTarolg wrote: Raw milk tends to be handled carefully because
a> Every single supplier of raw milk prides themselves on growing and rearing the best and healthiest cows possible b> the WHOLE POINT of the raw milk movement is to provide milk that is highly nutritious and have health benefits over traditional milk which CANNOT be drank raw
Now that I know the WHOLE POINT of the raw milk movement is nutrition and health, I will sleep better at night. And the more I think about it, the more I wonder what anyone's been arguing about.
Some cows drink their own milk, it's so good and healthy. They just bend down and slurp it up, and they make this awesome mooing/gurgling sound to let you know they ain't ever gonna stop while the milk is so raw and fresh. Like watermelon.
I've also heard the whole point of religion is to encourage universal brotherhood, and that's why I'm joining this church out in Empty Valley that raises its own geese and cows and sells goose blood to the tomato union which is thankfully outside of the Man's reach because Empty Valley Church sends their blood tomatoes around an island in the Pacific to avoid big bro's agencies that threaten them with science. I originally went to Empty Valley not because of any spiritual dilemma, but because my favorite metal band was playing there and raw music is even better than raw milk. At one point an Empty Valley employee was worried about all of the sick children, but we learned that even though evolution is a lie, the children would spontaneously evolve cheese tentacles that mostly sop up the extra yeast that's been growing on the tomatoes. According to one study (I am unable to find the link so you'll have to trust me that it's more scientific than anything the FDA or CDC could come up with), chicken blood tomatoes grown in all-natural bog conditions attract only the healthiest insect eggs, and the crystal vibrations from the eggs seem to have cancer-curing properties that not only attract the yeast, but inoculate Empty Valley Farm's slurping cows from other diseases as well, making their milk the healthiest. That's the whole point of Empty Valley Farm! Still, I'm glad we've avoided government scrutiny.
Wtf is this spout random fallacial rhetoric day or something?
Its a foodstuff that can get contaminated just like everything else if not handled properly
Yes, i trust the farmer i use to handle it properly.
Everything CAN be dangerous for you, in exactly the same way eating raw fish, meat and raw anything else could be dangerous. I've told you why i get it - its because its something special that on the whole, is safer and more nutritious than many of its marketed pasteurised variants, for reasons OTHER than pasteurisation.
I have no issue if that farmer decides to sell it to me pasteurised, its still the same cow and living conditions. I'd feel bad for my lactose intolerant friend yeah but thats all
I eat raw fish all the time. It tastes fantastic. Yea, its many times more dangerous than raw milk. Maybe we should live in a bubble and ban it too?
On August 09 2011 14:59 BrTarolg wrote: Wtf is this spout random fallacial rhetoric day or something?
Its a foodstuff that can get contaminated just like everything else if not handled properly
Yes, i trust the farmer i use to handle it properly.
Everything CAN be dangerous for you, in exactly the same way eating raw fish, meat and raw anything else could be dangerous. I've told you why i get it - its because its something special that on the whole, is safer and more nutritious than many of its marketed pasteurised variants, for reasons OTHER than pasteurisation.
I have no issue if that farmer decides to sell it to me pasteurised, its still the same cow and living conditions. I'd feel bad for my lactose intolerant friend yeah but thats all
I eat raw fish all the time. It tastes fantastic. Yea, its many times more dangerous than raw milk. Maybe we should live in a bubble and ban it too?
Go for it, just don't give it to kids, elderly, or sick people.
EPT
. Of course, some organic compounds can also be dangerous.
ing ding ding** Troll alert! Detected: Bona-fiiiide troll, niner-niner-bravo, tango incoming, locked on radar! Calling all available assets..over!
3-100.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Go31.png)
