Click the Pups
Calling for Donors!
Please Donate Monthly
Sponsors will bark up $10 for each new monthly sign-up
FReeper RonC will give FR $25 for each new Dollar-A-Day Club member!
Posted on 05/18/2012 3:34:42 PM PDT by Libertynotfree
Making sure the food supply is safe is not "nanny-statism." That is a constitutional function of the federal government, covered by the general welfare clause. Of course, I *do* know quite a bit about raw milk, which is exactly why I post that kind of information. I actually have nothing against people choosing to drink raw milk--as long as they have an *accurate* knowledge of the risks and are not under the false impression that raw milk has the almost magical properties that so many raw milk advocates ascribe to it.
More disease is passed through pasteurized milk than through raw milk...by many fold.
Provide a source for that, please. Less than 1% of milk is consumed raw, and it has been linked to 133 outbreaks, resulting in over 200 hospitalizations and at least 3 deaths. According to a recent CDC report, the rate of outbreaks caused by raw milk/milk products is 150 times greater than the rate caused by pasteurized milk/milk products.
Raw milk has enzymes to digest fat, and to make other parts of the milk digestable. Dairy intolerance generally disappears when dairy intolerant people start drinking raw milk.
So... people who don't drink raw milk can't digest fat? I think something like that would have been discovered decades ago, probably right around the time pasteurization was invented. And if raw milk enzymes are digesting all that milk fat, why isn't your milk rancid from all the fat digestion products within a few hours of being milked? Also, since pasteurization does not create lactose or destroy milk proteins--all causes of milk intolerance or allergies--there is absolutely no difference in the ability to tolerate raw vs. pasteurized milk.
And I suppose you thing the ‘essential’ omega 6’s, from corn oil, soybean oil, canola oil etc are really essential, and that butter is bad for you, margarine is good for you. And that the medium chain saturated fats in coconut oil are bad for you.
Why would you think that? Where did I talk about my idea of "healthy" diets? I only recall discussing the high and diverse pathogen content one is likely to encounter in raw milk.
Well, enjoy your boiled milk...never the way God intended it to be used.
I also enjoy my cooked meat, vegetables, and grains. I'm sure God didn't intend for us to cook those, either. I'm also fairly certain God didn't provide water in those handy little plastic bottles--but I enjoy those, as well.
Argh, I left out that the raw milk outbreaks happened (IIRC) between 1987 and 2005.
The systems haven't gotten more lax. They are more sophisticated than ever. Modern milking machines can tell exactly how much milk is produced by each cow, as well as detect various problems as they occur.
Your responses do not deserve further comment...you are generally incorrect...and especially enjoy the flourides in your drinking water...POISON!
The CDC raw milk stats are incorrect. Raw milk gets blamed for many many bacterial infestations originating in chicken, veggies, eggs that are improperly processed, etc. Those stistics are purposeful lies. I think you know that. If so, you are purpatrating the lie. There are no proven raw milk deaths, but there are many attributed to pasteurized milk.
If FDA, etc cared about ‘the food supply’, or about we the people, they would not allow all the drugs to be approved, and that continue to be sold after they have been documented to kill people. And the drug companies never get more than a gentle slap on the wrist. You know that is also true.
Peace, and enjoy your nanny state environment. You are still thinking like a Dem, and your comments, replies are supportive of that.
In a healthy cow, pathogens must be introduced from an outside source & a speck of dried manure, while it could contain LOTS of bacteria, likely will have no pathogens. Our milk is tested. We got a new cow & before her milk was consumed, we tested it. It had a high staph infection. She is used to feed calves rather than humans & is kept separate from the milk cow. She is also being treated with the hope the infection can be cleared up. So far only one quarter remains infected.
We use an isotropic filter. No, it won’t filter out individual bacteria, but our milk is not homogenized, either. But it lasts longer than store-bought milk. Perhaps the natural enzymes hold some of that bacteria in check.
I don’t know about other dairies, but most of our milk goes into quart or half-gallon containers which allows for much quicker cooling than a larger tank.
I would like to recall who told me the story about the scum, too.
The CDC raw milk stats are incorrect. Raw milk gets blamed for many many bacterial infestations originating in chicken, veggies, eggs that are improperly processed, etc. Those stistics are purposeful lies. I think you know that. If so, you are purpatrating the lie. There are no proven raw milk deaths, but there are many attributed to pasteurized milk.
If FDA, etc cared about ‘the food supply’, or about we the people, they would not allow all the drugs to be approved, and that continue to be sold after they have been documented to kill people. And the drug companies never get more than a gentle slap on the wrist. You know that is also true.
Peace, and enjoy your nanny state environment. You are still thinking like a Dem, and your comments, replies are supportive of that.
Interesting, I've run into far more radical liberals who think the way you do than conservatives. Every time I've entered an "organic" food store, the first thing I noticed was the high concentration of liberal hippy types. I've never seen a "natural" foods book that didn't reek with far-left ideology.
Since I am a scientist, the only thing I base my opinions on is evidence. I have a strong belief that people deserve to know the facts; I am also aware of the reality that a small number of people choose to disbelieve the facts, for whatever reason. It is in the interest of public health and education that I take the time to counter various health-related lies that I see posted from time to time. If those lies are left unchallenged, a naive person might not realize that there is no scientific basis for the lies.
Unless you keep your cows indoors in an insect and vermin-free facility, I do not see how you can possibly keep them free of disease. Fleas, ticks, birds, bats, rodents, deer, etc., etc., can all carry diseases that affect cattle. And there simply is no way to keep cows from encountering wildlife. This FDA fact page lists ten pathogenic bacterial species that commonly contaminate milk; that list is not inclusive of all bacterial pathogens, nor does it include non-bacterial pathogens. While you may place a high confidence in the testing of your milk, scientists over at the FDA have no confidence in milk testing. Not only is it cost-prohibitive to test for every pathogen in every batch of milk from every cow, but many pathogens cannot be detected even when the affected animal is actively shedding pathogens. There is a reason rabies infections are typically only confirmed post-mortem; before the animal shows symptoms, it is almost impossible to detect the virus. But that animal is certainly contagious. I should also point out that E. coli H157O7 is not a cow pathogen, although cows often carry it; it is the E. coli strain most often responsible for hemolytic-uremic syndrome.
We use an isotropic filter. No, it won’t filter out individual bacteria, but our milk is not homogenized, either. But it lasts longer than store-bought milk. Perhaps the natural enzymes hold some of that bacteria in check.
I know of no natural milk enzymes that would hold the bacteria in check. In fact, from what I read on various CDC and FDA websites, a higher enzyme content in milk indicates a likely infection. As for the milk lasting longer, I'll have to ask if you have done a controlled experiment. That involves taking milk from the same batch, separating it into several samples, half pasteurized, half raw, and storing them in the same conditions until they start to show signs of spoilage. And you'll have to use enough samples and repeat the experiment a sufficient number of times in order to get a statistically significant sample size. Just from casual observation (as opposed to rigorous scientific testing), it appears to me that the more times a milk container is opened, the faster it spoils, presumably from exposure to bacteria in the air.
I don’t know about other dairies, but most of our milk goes into quart or half-gallon containers which allows for much quicker cooling than a larger tank.
Commercial dairies must, by regulation, cool the milk down to storage temperature within a specific time after milking (within 4 hours in California). To do this, they use specialized cooling tanks. I do not know how quickly that process takes, as opposed to putting half-gallon containers in the fridge.
I would like to recall who told me the story about the scum, too.
Perhaps it was a one-time occurrence that you heard about? I can't imagine that any batch of milk with such a gross contamination would be used for anything, since regulations require the destruction of foods that fail to meet standards.
“Since I am a scientist, the only thing I base my opinions on is evidence. I have a strong belief that people deserve to know the facts; I am also aware of the reality that a small number of people choose to disbelieve the facts, for whatever reason. It is in the interest of public health and education that I take the time to counter various health-related lies that I see posted from time to time. If those lies are left unchallenged, a naive person might not realize that there is no scientific basis for the lies.”
‘Since I am a scientist...’ interesting, that makes your comments gospel? And in another post I believe I saw you claim to be a ‘medical researcher’. Good...I have a question for you relating to FDA oversight and ‘their desire to protect we the people’.
Merck is the largest drug maker. And they produced Vioxx. Now Vioxx, under FDA oversight, was finally removed from the market...after 60,000 deaths. Merck plea bargained a serious felony in regard to Vioxx into a misdemeanor that resulted in a $321 million fine...those following this case expected it would cost Merck $25 billion. That is just one of many examples of FDA ‘oversight’.
It’s even more tragic that a court would consider Merck’s illegal promotion of the drug a misdemeanor rather than a felony, since this tactic clearly exposed far more people to the dangerous drug than it would have otherwise. And, adding insult to injury, instead of the billions that Merck anticipated paying out, it got away with such a paltry sum.
But of course, you are probably ok with that...let the big drug companies off with a wrist slap and come down with gestapo tactics on raw milk producers/suppliers, who are doing so legally in California, And then intimidating those legally purchasing same by showing up at their door demanding access so that they can confiscate legal raw milk.
As for your attempt at defamation of my character,I am not an organic food store client, I am not a hippy type. I am a researcher, and engaged in medical research during my ‘working’ life. I am still a researcher. And I bet it is safe to say that I was a conservative before you were born.
Since you say, ‘I have a strong belief that people deserve to know the facts; I am also aware of the reality that a small number of people choose to disbelieve the facts, for whatever reason. It is in the interest of public health and education that I take the time to counter various health-related lies that I see posted from time to time.’ I suggest you learn to discern what is fact and what is fiction. You have not demonstrated that in these conversations.
The FDA/Merck Vioxx ‘deal’ is just one of many examples of your kind of ‘oversight’ having nothing to do with protecting ‘we the people’. FDA oversight is intended by the FDA hierarchy to protect their Big Pharma buddies. It and others with oversight responsibility protect their Big Ag or Big Chemical buddies. Protecting ‘we the people’ never enters the equation.
We all on this thread are awaiting your comments on the FDA/Merck/Vioxx atrocity...60,000 of ‘we the people’ dead. You being a scientist and a medical researcher should make you well qualified to give us your insight on this...
Being a scientist means that I am trained in data analysis, which encompasses a lot of things, including risk analysis. It does not mean that everything I say is gospel; what it means is that I take care to provide the most accurate information I can find, and that I have the educational background and experience to assess a claim as to its scientific merit or lack thereof. I am also careful to provide only verifiable information and provide references/links in most cases.
This thread is not about the FDA and the drug approval process; it is about raw milk. Although a full discussion of the FDA and its role in consumer protection is rather off-topic, I will make a few comments about the FDA and Merck. First of all, the drug development process is extremely lengthy and costly, and companies must jump through hoops to gain FDA approval for the 1% or so of drugs that actually make it all the way through the clinical trials stage. Because of the size and expense of clinical trials--the stage 3 trials, the last stage before submitting a drug for approval contain up to 3000 patients--it simply is not possible to detect every deleterious effect of a drug before approval. (If 1 out of 10,000 patients drops dead after taking a specific drug, that effect probably won't be seen in a trial of 1000 patients.) This is why there is a "stage 4" post-approval trial, during which adverse effects are reported and investigated. Furthermore, there is always a risk/benefit analysis done as part of the decision whether to allow a drug to stay on the market or not: a drug that kills 1 out of 10,000 patients will probably be pulled if it is a headache remedy, but if it is intended to treat a lethal cancer, its benefit outweighs the risk, and it will likely stay on the market. The biological reality is that there is no such thing as a perfectly safe drug.
As for the Merck/Vioxx deal--the product recalls five times since 2006; why is it still in business?
As for your attempt at defamation of my character,I am not an organic food store client, I am not a hippy type. I am a researcher, and engaged in medical research during my ‘working’ life. I am still a researcher. And I bet it is safe to say that I was a conservative before you were born.
Let's see--your profile says "I am retired from an engineering/technical/sales career in the rubber industry, and now pretend to be a farmer - having a small piece of land with horses and beefalo (bovine/bison hybrid)." Hmm, that doesn't sound like a solid career in medical research to me. And you may very well be a conservative in *other* areas, but the ideas you have expressed about raw milk are identical to the ideas about "health foods" that I've heard my whole life, ever since the 1960s, when I grew up in CA, near San Francisco, an area well known to have a high hippy infestation.
Since you say, ‘I have a strong belief that people deserve to know the facts; I am also aware of the reality that a small number of people choose to disbelieve the facts, for whatever reason. It is in the interest of public health and education that I take the time to counter various health-related lies that I see posted from time to time.’ I suggest you learn to discern what is fact and what is fiction. You have not demonstrated that in these conversations.
Really? As I already pointed out, I take great pains to provide the most accurate science-based information possible. Every resource I have linked (except for the news article) contains references to scientific literature, which is accessible to anyone. Raw milk advocates who claim that raw milk has almost magical properties do not have any references to support their claims, or if they do, they typically misrepresent what the reference actually said.
If you were to say that yes, you understand the disease risks of drinking raw milk, and you understand that it is not more nutritional than pasteurized milk, but you choose to drink it anyway because you like the taste (or whatever), I would actually not have anything to say to you. As long as people understand the risks, I don't care what they do. But when you deny that the risks even exist in order to convince yourself that raw milk is perfectly safe, then I have a responsibility to point out that raw milk is NOT safe. I don't do that necessarily for your benefit (you'll insist on believing in the safety of raw milk until it lands you in the hospital), but for the benefit of others, who genuinely may be unaware that those who profit from selling raw milk will say anything to increase their customer base.
“raw milk is NOT safe”
Raw milk is safe and you lie when you say it is not. Raw milk is healthy, and you lie when you say it is not.
Enjoy your pasteurized, homogenized, low fat dairy product you would like to call milk. It is good for you!
As for conservative, I doubt that you, exDem, would recognize one. Removing oneself as you say you have from the leftism of Northern California, you are probably still left of Romney and a few other RINO’s we could name.
Enjoy your pasteurized, homogenized, low fat dairy product you would like to call milk. It is good for you!
As for conservative, I doubt that you, exDem, would recognize one. Removing oneself as you say you have from the leftism of Northern California, you are probably still left of Romney and a few other RINO’s we could name.
Really? I've provided credible references for everything I've said about the dangers of raw milk. Where are your credible scientific references that establish its safety? Where have you even provided references?
Hint: liars most often lie to protect their profit. They make outrageous claims about the benefits of their product, but have no evidence to substantiate their claims. Of course they don't advertise that any number of pathogenic bacteria species might be found in their raw milk--they could lose customers.
On the other hand, people working in the area of public health don't make a profit; they are most likely salaried employees. It is their job to keep up with the most current scientific information.
As I said before, I'm all for people making whatever decision they want, as long as they have complete and accurate information. I honestly don't care if you smoke five packs per day and eat deep fried bacon draped over butter saturated biscuits for breakfast every morning, if you're fully aware that those may not be good health habits.
The essence of conservatism is to provide people with the best and most accurate information and then to step back and let them make their own decisions, regardless of what the decisions are. So don't sit there and call me a leftist because I insist on providing accurate information to counter what are outright lies.
You’re dependent on the FDA & CDC. Both have exposed their bias in the past, so why should we, also, depend on them? Here is another biased website. There IS evidence the FDA & CDC won’t shore.
I'm not "dependent" on anyone. The FDA and the CDC have as their mission the protection of public health. They provide information based on the best scientific evidence we currently have. Scientists who work for the CDC and FDA are salaried employees who don't make a profit either way. Those who run the "realmilk.com" website are motivated by pure profit. They say anything to protect their profit, and are motivated by the consideration that if they told the truth about their product, they might not attract as many customers. I have no problem with people who have accurate information and decide that the flavor of raw milk is worth the risk. Personally, I like eggs over-easy, and I do eat them on occasion even though I know that I risk getting food poisoning every time I do so. But when people have to justify their decision to drink raw milk on the basis of bald-faced lies, that suggests to me that they actually are not comfortable with the risk, and embrace a level of denial about it.
I realize that there are a number of websites out there, and it is difficult to discern which websites promote accurate information and which ones will say anything to protect their profits. One way to tell the difference is by the number of references provided. A website dedicated to providing information that people can use to make up their own minds typically references every statement they make, and most of the references are available to the public through PubMed. The websites dedicated to protecting profit above all else typically do not provide many references, and the rare references that they do provide contain only cherry-picked quotes that don't represent the overall message of the original reference.
Yeah, you ARE dependent upon the statistics & propaganda of both the CDC and the FDA. Both have shown a bias in the past, GMOs, firearms, vaccines, etc. I think it is unfair & unreasonable of you to claim the only reason realmilk is there for is for profit.
Yep, you're right. Given the choice between believing the carefully investigated and documented reports of outbreaks, along with the statistics of when and where these outbreaks occur, vs. believing the word of some "organic" raw milk vendor bragging about his farm being inspected monthly, without bothering to mention that most of those are reinspections resulting from the fact that his farm has multiple health violations--I choose to believe the FDA and CDC scientists.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.