Posted on 06/23/2013 8:03:38 AM PDT by rickmichaels
DAIRY is a way of life in Wisconsin. Milk is the official state beverage. Locals proudly refer to themselves as “cheeseheads”. Hats in the shape of slices of Swiss are popular. A heart-stopping treat called “fried curds” is a staple bar snack. Local licence-plates read “America’s Dairyland”. All of which perhaps explains why the state authorities took the conduct of Vernon Hershberger so seriously.
Mr Hershberger runs a traditional dairy with 40 cows. State law prohibits selling milk to the public without pasteurising it first. But Mr Hershberger tried to get around this stricture by setting up a “club” which provided raw milk (also known as “moo-shine”) to its members—until state food inspectors raided his farm, destroyed the milk they found and put him on trial.
Members of the ARMi (Alliance for Raw Milk internationale) and other “food freedom” activists flocked to the courthouse, brandishing placards declaring, “My milk My body My choice” and “Land of the free? Tell my cow”, among other slogans. They likened Mr Hershberger to Rosa Parks, a celebrated civil-rights activist, and demanded the freedom to eat (and drink) whatever they like. The jury was sympathetic: on May 25th Mr Hershberger was acquitted of operating without the proper licences, although he was found guilty of moving food the authorities had ordered him to keep as evidence after the raid.
Mr Hershberger is not the only crusader for raw milk, and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture not the movement’s only foe. The federal government prohibits moving the stuff across state lines, although it has no power to regulate it within state boundaries. The Food and Drug Administration’s website explains that unpasteurised dairy products are more likely to make those who consume them sick than pasteurised ones. It adds that moo-shine’s purported health benefits are unsubstantiated.
Raw-milk activists are not cowed. Their kind of milk is much tastier than the processed muck, they say. In some of the 20 states that ban its sale, they operate “herdshares”. A farmer sells stakes (not steaks) in cows that he tends. He then gives raw milk to shareholders, and charges a maintenance fee. If not the land of the free, America is certainly the land of the ingenious lawyer.
BTW...do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
Oh, I already did THAT! ;)
I could be crawling on the floor drunk and still know there’s a difference between the government proscribing theft and the government prescribing a diet.
What’s your excuse fascist?
Good God...there are some scary individuals here on FR.Not many,but a few. A diet? Tell us everything you know about bacteria and viruses.Focus on the multitude of ways that they can be transmitted from animals to humans and from human to human.I’ve got 5 seconds.And why not knock off the “fascist” stuff...unless you *enjoy* sounding like Barney Fag.What’s your Dumpster Underground screen name,anyway?
Again with the orders. You apparently *enjoy* (silly affectation that) sounding like Colonel Klink.
There are some good things about our current food system, including pasteurization.
“Pasteurization also alters the chemical structure, makes fats rancid, destroys nutrients and results in the formation of free radicals in the body.”
I would have to question the above points. Rancid (besides being a current punk rock band) refers to the oxygenation of fats and was a problem in early pasteurization techniques but improved high temp, lower times periods helped reduce this problem. It may destroy some nutrients but will also preserve some nutrients. Personally I have never been comfortable with the free radical concept. The body is an amazing creation and some MAY be affected by this but for example, not ALL smokers get cancer and in fact some smoking may be beneficial for some.
From the comments here this is a very emotional issue and this is a complex issue because God made us unique and complex. But freedom of choice is the overriding issue and along with freedom comes responsibility.
I absolutely agree. But there is always something more important than freedom on people's minds so it becomes rarer and rarer.
I am sure the vast majority of people would continue to drink pasteurized milk and the amount of raw milk sold would be very small compared to the processed type.
Once again, it is not the governments job to save me, or anyone, from their own actions.
It is absolutely about choice and I am dismayed to see some posters that want to control others choices. We have become a society of controls......even on FR.
I think I will have another glass of raw milk.
I have about half a gallon of it in my fridge.
Between this thread and the “cop shoots dog thread” I vote YOU as scariest poster of the day.
My goodness...your tranquilizer bills must be huge.I'll bet you jump a mile high when some cuts a loud one.Take deep breaths when you feel frightened....life isn't nearly as scary as you obviously think it is.
Um, no.
You mentioned scary individuals.
Merely pointing out the irony of your post.
Nanny state apologists annoy and disgust me.
Thanks for the ping!
Did you take a tranquilizer before posting?
People became ill when they used milk from cows kept in unsanitary conditions in cities. Pasteurization was a lot cheaper than cleaning up filthy dairies. Pasteurization and homogenization also gives milk a long shelf life so it can be shipped from dairy conglomerates to stores. Control of food is everything to government.
I don't know about any "disinformation campaign." There is scientific evidence, and there is pseudoscientific quackery. I'm firmly on the side of science. Most of the reasons advanced for drinking raw milk fall right into the pseudoscience category.
I am unaware of any ranch or dairy where cows are kept in pristine, sterile conditions. The only way I can think of to keep cows in a pathogen-free environment would be to keep them indoors in a building where all of their wastes are continually removed, their food is sterilized, their water is filtered, and the building is sanitized frequently. I do not know of any dairy operation that keeps cows like that--most of them let their cows outdoors, where they are grazing in the same pasture that they use as a bathroom. And where they come into contact with wild animals who also use the pasture as a bathroom. Despite your romantic notions, there is nothing sanitary about cows. I grew up on a ranch--I know very well just how dirty farm animals are.
FYI, food safety standards cover just about every aspect of foods that are sold for human consumption, from how they are grown and harvested, to storage conditions at the store. This isn't because the government is "controlling" the food supply. The government does this because when food safety is not regulated--as is the situation in China--people come up with a variety of imaginative ways to adulterate the food, and the foods are often microbially contaminated. This was the situation in the US in our early history; it is the situation now in countries where they don't regulate food safety. The regulation of food safety is not to control you--it is to prevent the unscrupulous from selling you food that is unsafe to eat. It's no different than other product safety regulations.
Pasteurization also alters the chemical structure, makes fats rancid, destroys nutrients and results in the formation of free radicals in the body.
Do you ever eat cooked food? Have you ever mixed together different foods? Have you ever frozen food? Since there is almost nothing you can do to food in the process of preparing or eating it that *does not* alter the chemical structure, pointing out that chemical structures may be altered during pasteurization is hardly a valid argument against the process.
You can buy into the fear tactics and believe that you need government to be your Mommy.
The purpose of government is to protect citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. This is a function of government that I fully support.
Do not misinterpret what I am doing here. I actually do not care whether you choose to drink filthy milk. What I care about, a lot, is the truth. Using untruths to justify the decision to drink raw milk is what I am trying to counter here. If you were to say something like, "Yes, I understand that I risk a life-threatening illness every time I drink raw milk, but I like the taste," I would have nothing to say. I fully support your right to make unhealthy choices, as long as you are fully informed.
The statistic may be dated, but it is still valid. If the practice of pasteurization were to be discontinued for some reason, the number of food poisoning cases resulting from raw milk consumption would again sky-rocket. A very recent analysis (which I believe I either linked or was linked to something else I linked) revealed that you are 150-fold more likely to get food-poisoning from raw milk than from pasteurized. Furthermore, illnesses resulting from raw milk consumption are likely to be much more serious than from pasteurized milk consumption.
My major point is that you and I have our opinion but give a little freedom to those who have other preferences. There is a tough balance between freedom and safety, even we conservatives want to impose our will on others.
The purpose of government is to protect its citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic. Regulating food safety is a perfectly valid and constitutional government function. I think many of the people complaining about regulating food safety have no idea about how big of an endeavor that is, or about the thousands of people working to make our food supply safe. They seem to think that government is hands-off with food safety, until it comes to raw milk where all of a sudden the government becomes the gestapo--and that isn't the case at all. All foods are regulated.
I actually have no problem with people drinking raw milk--if they fully understand the risk. My beef is with all the pseudoscientific quackery and almost magical belief system that people use to justify their choice to drink raw milk.
Actually, I think you miss the point. According to the constitution, the government has the duty of protecting citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The government also has the duty of providing for the general welfare (which does *not* mean putting people on permanent dole). It is very clear that the government must protect the citizens.
Perhaps you are unaware that the government regulates *everything* about the food supply, not just milk. This regulation is not to control people, or to prevent them from consuming foods that they want to consume. Rather, it is to protect them from unscrupulous people who would happily sell them filthy, disease-ridden and adulterated food if there were not laws against it.
Unfortunately, most of the arguments I have seen in favor of drinking raw milk are outright lies. People basing their decision to drink raw milk on these lies are *not* making an informed choice. I believe that people have the right to full and correct information, especially where their health is concerned.
I am sure the vast majority of people would continue to drink pasteurized milk and the amount of raw milk sold would be very small compared to the processed type.
Actually, I think the number of people drinking raw milk would go up until the resulting number of food-poisoning cases became such an overwhelming public-health issue that people would demand that raw milk sales be banned again. As it is, less than 1% of people drink raw milk--even at that low number, it is still a significant public-health problem.
Once again, it is not the governments job to save me, or anyone, from their own actions.
That's not quite true, but that's beside the point. People who make decisions based on lies are not acting with full knowledge. They have a right to have all the facts so that their decision is informed. I'm sure that most smokers are fully aware of the dangers of smoking--I don't think I've ever made a single anti-smoking post, and I've posted thousands of times here. But I will point out the dangers of unsafe food habits to people who (willfully, in many cases) are unaware of them.
The purpose of government is to protect citizens from all threats, foreign and domestic.
LOL!!!!
My brother drives a semi. He picked up a load of pickles and got to tour the "factory". What he saw would make you puke. Government doesn't "protect" us. It controls.
You have a nice evening.
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.