Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Unpasteurized milk, which many foodies will tell you is the Greatest Health Drink EVAR, is 150 times more likely to kill you than regular milk. But where's the reward without a little risk, amiright?   (yourlife.usatoday.com) divider line 301
    More: Stupid, EVAR, Emerging Infectious Diseases, mental healths, milk, Centers for Disease Control  
•       •       •

3982 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2012 at 12:29 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



301 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-22 02:06:17 PM  

dahmers love zombie: ytterbium: My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.

How Darwinian. Personally, I'd encourage her.


Too bad you can't call CPS for that
 
2012-02-22 02:07:05 PM  
The food safety laws are there to protect consumers. You want to be an idiot, go ahead. You want to sell you idiocy to others then you get to explain yourself to a jduge.
 
2012-02-22 02:07:49 PM  

lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.


exactly just like you don't want to hear someone who drinks alcohol complain about liver failure or someone who smokes complain about cancer or someone who ignores traffic rules upset about the accident they got in.
 
2012-02-22 02:09:37 PM  

Jubeebee:
Hypothetical: Would you be OK with your kid sitting next to someone who came back from recently visited Central America with a case of measles? Does the school have a right to prevent kids with known who may have been exposed to infectious diseases from coming to school? After all, there are already risks associated with going to school, and there's no guarantee that your child will contract the disease from the sick kid.


I fixed your hypothetical. Unless you're really trying to claim that 100% of people who drink raw milk are not only infected, but also highly contagious.
 
2012-02-22 02:09:55 PM  
infectious bacteria are in the actual milk, not just on the cow or in its shiat. tuberculosis is one example.
 
2012-02-22 02:09:58 PM  

Carth: Russ1642: Rapmaster2000: Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.

Ground beef certainly is because it's nondescript. You can't go wrong with ground sirloin or ground chuck though.

Ground sirloin is ground beef. Processing raw foods is dangerous not just because of the meat but all the equipment involved needs to be kept super clean. Cooking meat eliminates most of the hazards that come up during the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage of meat the flavor.


And condoms make sex worse. Your point is?
 
2012-02-22 02:10:52 PM  

neuroflare: dahmers love zombie: ytterbium: My friends gives her young kids raw milk. They're also unvaccinated and they have multiple alleries.

A recipe for disaster, it makes me worry.

How Darwinian. Personally, I'd encourage her.

Too bad you can't call CPS for that


It's only a matter of time before the deaths start stacking up. It happened in England when Andrew Wakefield first released his fraudulent findings, and the vaccination rate didn't tick up until a few kids had died and people got some personal experience with the measles or knew of someone that had.
 
2012-02-22 02:13:10 PM  

namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?


If there is a clearly denoted risk on the product, and a child falls ill, then yes, I believe the parents are culpable for putting their kids at risk. Whether or not they should be criminally charged is up to law enforcement, I suppose. Parents feed all kinds of stuff to their children, both intentionally and unintentionally. My friend was once served an undercooked burger by his father that gave him food poisoning. One could argue that his father or parents that serve their children raw milk was/are guilty of child endangerment, and could probably make a strong case. One would have to make a distinction between accident and willful disregard of the risks, however.
 
2012-02-22 02:14:30 PM  

Raoul Eaton: Unhomogenized milk is tastier than homogenized because the homogenization process changes the milk fat structure.


Safer too, because of XO = Xanthene Oxidase, right?

/vaguely remembers reading some health-food catalog article in the '80s.
 
2012-02-22 02:15:31 PM  

catchow: iheartscotch: Ok; put me squarely down in the meh camp. If someone wants to drink raw/unpaturized milk; let 'em. It's their own damn fault if they get sick.

Also, as long as the cow isn't standing in her own shiat, her utters were washed beforehand and the milk is stored in a clean, cold vessel; the risk is minimial.

If you're getting the milk from bessy out in the barn; it's ok. But, if you're getting it from a commercial dairy; it's not.



Wanna know how I know you've never been in a milking parlor? Or a barnyard? Or a pasture? Or even looked at a cow's udders? Or a cow?

Pastured cows shiat constantly as a consequence of their all-grass diet (grass isn't just fibrous, it takes up silica from the soil). Said shiat is more liquid than solid. It annoints their tails and runs down their backsides, the insides of their thights, and their udders. Without rotational grazing, cattle will quickly turn a small pasture or milking yard into a sea of liquid feces. They also crap in streams & farm ponds. While they're chewing their cud, cattle may stand motionless for hours, dragging their udders in waste or soaking them in bacteria-laden water.

Once they get into the milking parlor, even after their udders have been washed and the teats hooked up to the machine, there's nothing to stop them from continuing to shiat all over themselves and each other.

/Non-homogenized, pasteurized chocolate milk is the shizzle.


Ok chuckles; I don't have a horse (cow?) in this one. But if your cows shiat a lot of liquid; you have bigger problems to deal with. Firstly, any animal that takes liquid shiats will get dihydrated eventually. Secondly, you don't feed dairy cows only grass; grass isn't nutrious enough.

But as I said, I don't have a cow in this one; I don't care if some idiot drinks raw milk. I won't be the one getting sick.
 
2012-02-22 02:15:36 PM  
I used to drink almost a gallon of the shiat per day when I was lifting weights all the time. It's not going to kill you. Not unless you're pathetic, at least.
 
2012-02-22 02:16:55 PM  

Tawnos: Rent Party: Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?

What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?

I chill sushi because it is easier to cut when it's cold.

They didn't eat salmon, for one.


Well, perhaps not in the far east, but here in the Northwest, salmon was such an integral part of the native diet they turned the farking thing into a God.

www.mensaww.org
 
2012-02-22 02:19:15 PM  

Russ1642: Carth: Russ1642: Rapmaster2000: Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.

Ground beef certainly is because it's nondescript. You can't go wrong with ground sirloin or ground chuck though.

Ground sirloin is ground beef. Processing raw foods is dangerous not just because of the meat but all the equipment involved needs to be kept super clean. Cooking meat eliminates most of the hazards that come up during the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage of meat the flavor.

And condoms make sex worse. Your point is?


That people have different levels of risk tolerance. Your fear of germs doesn't translate the same to everyone else so your argumentative technique of repeating the dangers of bacteria, while logical, don't affect others the way it affects you. Risk tolerance is an emotional decision - even for you.

In other words, relax about the undercooked meat.
 
2012-02-22 02:20:16 PM  
Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.
 
2012-02-22 02:25:15 PM  
Ignore this BS girls. It is perfectly safe to swallow.
 
2012-02-22 02:27:53 PM  

Russ1642: Carth: Russ1642: Rapmaster2000: Rent Party: jagec: Russ1642: Next up will be a movement of people not fully cooking hamburgers. Grab you unpasteurized buttered popcorn and sit back for the show.

Actually, medium-rare hamburgers are DELICIOUS. But I don't try to pretend that they aren't more likely to make me sick than the boring fully cooked kind.

If you want rare, order a steak. Ground beef is the assholes and elbows of the cow, generally. I want mine burned all the way through.

Ground beef certainly is because it's nondescript. You can't go wrong with ground sirloin or ground chuck though.

Ground sirloin is ground beef. Processing raw foods is dangerous not just because of the meat but all the equipment involved needs to be kept super clean. Cooking meat eliminates most of the hazards that come up during the processing, packaging, distribution, and storage of meat the flavor.

And condoms make sex worse. Your point is?


That's actually a pretty good example.

If you eat at good restaurants of known quality, with kitchens that you trust, you can eat it raw.
If you date women of good character, who you trust are clean and on the pill, you can hit it raw.

In both cases, your risks are slightly higher than if you used "protection", but the enjoyment is also better. That makes it worth it to me.

If you bang bar skanks and eat at Denny's, yeah, you should probably play it safe.
 
2012-02-22 02:29:40 PM  
When I was born in 1967, milk was still being delivered to our by a neighborhood dairy out in the country in Ohio. I was raw milk. I stayed raw until I turned, I think, 7 years old.
The dairy cows were within 5 miles of our house. We had a large yard with woods, and the woods had poison ivy everywhere. I wasn't allergic to it tho, so it was all good.
Then the dairy had to comply, and started homogenizing and pasteurization. Within a year or so of that time, I started getting poison ivy. Bad.

Later in life, I did some research. When cows are grazing on local grasses, clovers, leaves, etc.. drinking the raw milk could help prevent allergies, just like eating local honey can help against allergies.
I can only assume that the local cows were grazing in the same foliage I played in, so they probably ate poison ivy.

IMO I think we are starting to pasteurize too many food items.
And maybe.. just maybe, that's why some kids are having crazy food allergies?
 
2012-02-22 02:30:44 PM  

santadog: When I was born in 1967, milk was still being delivered to our by a neighborhood dairy out in the country in Ohio. I was raw milk. I stayed raw until I turned, I think, 7 years old.
The dairy cows were within 5 miles of our house. We had a large yard with woods, and the woods had poison ivy everywhere. I wasn't allergic to it tho, so it was all good.
Then the dairy had to comply, and started homogenizing and pasteurization. Within a year or so of that time, I started getting poison ivy. Bad.

Later in life, I did some research. When cows are grazing on local grasses, clovers, leaves, etc.. drinking the raw milk could help prevent allergies, just like eating local honey can help against allergies.
I can only assume that the local cows were grazing in the same foliage I played in, so they probably ate poison ivy.

IMO I think we are starting to pasteurize too many food items.
And maybe.. just maybe, that's why some kids are having crazy food allergies?


Sorry for the typos. My keys are sticking relentlessly at work.
 
2012-02-22 02:31:09 PM  
FYI....cow milk is for calfs
 
2012-02-22 02:32:15 PM  

santadog:

Sorry for the typos. My keys are sticking relentlessly at work.


Sounds like your office has a pretty cool masturbation policy.
 
2012-02-22 02:34:46 PM  
Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk.

If I ever meet you I'm punching you square in the mouth for this. Milk farking rules.
 
2012-02-22 02:34:52 PM  

namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?


An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?
 
2012-02-22 02:36:45 PM  

stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.

Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point which is getting lost on people. When you get sick, you increase the generalized burden on the public health system. You tap finite resources. More people getting sick means the resources are stretched further and further, to the point of breaking. This is why you have to get your farking children vaccinated - I know you can opt out, but you're an absolute mouthbreathing farktard if you do.

But there's an even greater problem. These pathogens are communicable. If you carry around a Salmonella infection, you can spread the organism to places where it wasn't before. The same is true of any bug. You know how smart people open a public bathroom door with a paper towel to avoid getting a cold? It applies to other microbes too, and if you're shedding bacteria, you can get those little buggers everywhere.

So now your decision to drink raw milk (or have your children unvaccinated, let's say) creates a greater chance that you will become a reservoir of disease. Then you'll go around interacting with people, spreading your disease around.

This is how outbreaks start.

And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.

So no, it's not just your own problem if you drink raw milk. It's my problem too. It's your school's problem. It's your workplace's problem.

And despite the fact that I am objectively correct, raw milk advocates will not change their minds.

It's really not a conspiracy. It's not a government plot. I just don't want people to farking die from diseases that by all rights simply should not be an issue. It's really farking simple. There's no trick to it. I don't get paid enough to matter. There's no shilling here.

It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist
 
2012-02-22 02:40:31 PM  

TheWhaleShark: stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.
Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point which is getting lost on people. When you get sick, you increase the generalized burden on the public health system. You tap finite resources. More people getting sick means the resources are stretched further and further, to the point of breaking. This is why you have to get your farking children vaccinated - I know you can opt out, but you're an absolute mouthbreathing farktard if you do.

But there's an even greater problem. These pathogens are communicable. If you carry around a Salmonella infection, you can spread the organism to places where it wasn't before. The same is true of any bug. You know how smart people open a public bathroom door with a paper towel to avoid getting a cold? It applies to other microbes too, and if you're shedding bacteria, you can get those little buggers everywhere.

So now your decision to drink raw milk (or have your children unvaccinated, let's say) creates a greater chance that you will become a reservoir of disease. Then you'll go around interacting with people, spreading your disease around.

This is how outbreaks start.

And you know what's even worse than all of this? Mycobacterium bovis can contaminate raw milk. That causes bovine tuberculosis. But you know what else it can cause? Human tuberculosis. And in some cases, it can become human-human transmissible after jumping the species barrier. It's also hypothesized that M. tuberculosis just split off from M. bovis. And of course, M. tuberculosis can be found in raw milk.

So no, it's not just your own problem if you drink raw milk. It's my problem too. It's your school's problem. It's your workplace's problem.

And despite the fact that I am objectively correct, raw milk advocates will not change their minds.

It's really not a conspiracy. It's not a government plot. I just don't want people to farking die from diseases that by all rights simply should not be an issue. It's really farking simple. There's no trick to it. I don't get paid enough to matter. There's no shilling here.

It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist


Thread over.
 
2012-02-22 02:41:47 PM  

ericroane: FYI....cow milk is for calfs


and honey is bee vomit. What's your point?
 
2012-02-22 02:42:41 PM  

TheWhaleShark:

...

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

....


I mean, I totally understand and agree with you in principle. I'm not really a raw milk advocated, and I'm not hung up on the risks, (like I said, they are risks I'd never personally take), but more on the civil liberties thing. As a public health microbiologist, you're probably the right person to ask: where do you draw the line regarding banning raw milk, eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other well known sources of salmonella, e. coli, and listeria? Is it that the risk for tuberculosis in raw milk is that much greater? I am genuinely curious, and since you are far more knowledgeable/experienced in the subject than I, I'll defer to your judgement.
 
2012-02-22 02:42:51 PM  

TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist


I guess you didn't become a real scientist because you couldn't understand statistics or the concept of acceptable risk, right?

There are so many public health issues that are MUCH more serious than raw milk, and that's the one that you focus on? Give me a break. You could make a far better public health case for banning hard liquor, and God help you if you tried.
 
2012-02-22 02:45:53 PM  

TheWhaleShark: stainedglassdoll: Just out of curiosity, I looked up other foods that are banned in the US. Link (new window)

It seems the majority of reasons for banning foods is due to animal welfare (endangered, cruel, etc).
The next biggest reason seems to be characteristic dangers of the food (sassafras has carcinogens, fugu is poisonous, though I believe fugu is not expressly banned in the US, but requires a license to serve).

It seems only raw milk is banned for contamination reasons, not for any inherent property of the milk itself (aside from its propensity to be contaminated). Just thought that was interesting.
Raw milk isn't banned nationwide. About half the states in the union have laws banning raw milk. The rest regulate its sale to some degree or another.

It should be banned, but I'm very close to giving up on explaining why to people.

I'll try anyhow:

1) Yes, raw milk is more likely to contain deadly pathogens than pasteurized milk.
2) As a result, the sale of raw milk is highly restricted, to prevent dissemination to the population.

Think about it like this. Pasteurized milk causes 100 deaths in a year. Unpasteurized milk causes the same number, but is consumed at 1/150th the rate of pasteurized milk. Thus, if everyone was able to drink raw milk, we'd see 15,000 deaths in a year because of the product.

This is, of course, a purely hypothetical exercise. The actual numbers would vary, but the principle is correct - widespread consumption of raw milk would lead to an increase in the burden placed on the public health system by extremely preventable foodborne illnesses.

And that's the thing - it's a public health issue. So maybe the per capita risk is something like 1/100,000 for raw milk and 1/10,000,000 for pasteurized. Whoop-de-doo, that means nothing to a single consumer. However, iterated out over the entire country, it's a huge difference.

Which leads me to:

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

This is increasingly a point whic ...


Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?
 
2012-02-22 02:46:05 PM  

lokisbong: namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?

An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?


Problem is, in my experience the raw milk drinkers don't want that label on the stuff, because they know it will turn people off. Then in the next breath they will rant about how we don't label foods with GMO ingredients as having GMO in them.

Difference being, we have scientific evidence that raw milk can be harmful, but last I looked, evidence that GMO corn and soy can be harmful to humans has not been found despite scientists studying their effects. And yes, scientists are looking at this, despite what you hear from the anti-GMO crowd.
 
2012-02-22 02:46:34 PM  
Then don't drink unpasteurized milk.

Why do we need the government to hold our hands for everything? Dumbasses need someone to blame when they do something stupid to themselves?
 
2012-02-22 02:47:09 PM  

TheWhaleShark: /public health microbiologist


You'd think a public health microbiologist would be more aware of things like odds....

Seriously, man, I know the raw milk people are complete and utter 'tards, but come on. If you want to go on a rampage against idiots who are putting the rest of us at risk, I'll bet worrying about the morons who don't wash their hands after they use the restroom are a much more concerning public health problem than the raw milk boneheads.
 
2012-02-22 02:47:59 PM  

jagec: TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist

I guess you didn't become a real scientist because you couldn't understand statistics or the concept of acceptable risk, right?

There are so many public health issues that are MUCH more serious than raw milk, and that's the one that you focus on? Give me a break. You could make a far better public health case for banning hard liquor, and God help you if you tried.


Come on, man. I know, Welcome to Fark, and all that, but there's no need to disrespect the guy's profession. If microbiology is not a "real science", I wonder what your qualifications for defining "real science" are. I actually enjoy when people who have professional experience with the topic at hand join the thread and offer some real hands-on perspective on the subject matter. You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a change from a bunch of us layman speculating about things.

Also you can't really blame him for caring more about raw milk issues over others, such as alcohol; he's a microbiologist, you know, he studies microorganisms. Which is far more applicable to raw milk than booze.
 
2012-02-22 02:48:44 PM  

Splinshints: TheWhaleShark: /public health microbiologist

You'd think a public health microbiologist would be more aware of things like odds....

Seriously, man, I know the raw milk people are complete and utter 'tards, but come on. If you want to go on a rampage against idiots who are putting the rest of us at risk, I'll bet worrying about the morons who don't wash their hands after they use the restroom are a much more concerning public health problem than the raw milk boneheads.


Surprisingly, humans are excellent multi-taskers and can focus on several different things during the course of their days.
 
2012-02-22 02:49:19 PM  
I'm a real man, I take my milk raw and intravenously!
 
2012-02-22 02:49:46 PM  

TheWhaleShark: It's honestly a bad idea. It's that simple.

/public health microbiologist


I really do agree with you but the nutjobs will whine about us taking away their freedoms. The same argument used every time something is deemed a public health hazard. I wish people would use logic like yours every day but the very vocal minority think climate change, vaccinations and banning really farking dangerous things like unpasteurized milk are a conspiracy to remove their personal freedoms and also seem to run the G.O.P. so I don't see this problem going away. So I say label it as uber dangerous. Maybe the really stupid one will kill them selves off quickly and the sane majority can ban it then.
 
2012-02-22 02:50:18 PM  

Splinshints: filter: Inlaws run a dairy operation - I have seen plenty of bucket milk head straight to the kitchen. No one died from it yet.

One of my friends once jumped off a hotel balcony into a swimming pool and didn't die. Since it's clearly safe, I encourage you to try it.


also: i saw that someone once died just crossing the street. better stay indoors.

/also heard that someone died IN THEIR OWN HOME!!!!111!!!!!
//where does it end?
 
2012-02-22 02:53:03 PM  

Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?


Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?
 
2012-02-22 02:53:58 PM  

lokisbong: namegoeshere: lokisbong: stainedglassdoll: People should be able to eat whatever they want. That being said, there needs to be a clear warning label on raw dairy products that denotes the risks.

I fully support this idea. I will keep drinking my milk pasteurized and if some one wants to take the risks of drinking raw milk Let em. Just don't complain near me when you raw milk drinkers end up in a hospital dieing from some nasty bug in your raw milk or paralyzed like the lady in the article I linked to earlier.

What about the parents who will insist on feeding it to their children?

An age limit like alcohol? I think drinking unpasteurized is absolutely idiotic at any age. But if people are gonna biatch about personal freedoms I guess really large warnings on the containers and an age limit thing?


Eh. It's legal in my state, sold on the farm only, with posted notice.

I dunno. Having nearly lost babby to foodborne e-coli, watching her scream and writhe in pain, filling diaper after diaper after diaper with bloody shiat, kidney function tests every 12 hours... There's a big part of me who thinks this should be banned. Because just as there are idiot anti-vaxers, there will always be idiot parents who will insist on feeding it to their children. And while you can blood test for alchohol, there is no way to prove that a parent did or didn't feed the kid raw milk.

/did not feed babby undercooked meat or raw milk.
//was careful with food prep before
///is now completely neurotic about it
////not 100% sure where it came from, most likely she touched something touched by someone with it on their hands, and put her hands in her mouth, as kids do.
 
2012-02-22 02:54:13 PM  

jagec: TheWhaleShark:
/public health microbiologist

I guess you didn't become a real scientist because you couldn't understand statistics or the concept of acceptable risk, right?

There are so many public health issues that are MUCH more serious than raw milk, and that's the one that you focus on? Give me a break. You could make a far better public health case for banning hard liquor, and God help you if you tried.


Hard liquor only kills you. If you decide to get into a car when you're totally blasted, and kill a bunch of people, that's not the liquor's fault, that's your fault for being an idiot.

Raw milk is hazardous by its very nature. Simply drinking it exposes other people to a greater risk of contracting fatal diseases.

And, by the way, public health scientists engage in risk assessment studies constantly. In fact, risk assessment is the primary focus of public health science, and it's rarely the focus of "real" science. There are different well-educated and well-researched opinions about just what constitutes "acceptable" risk, and these differing opinions come together to advise the public all the time.

But, y'know, not being a real scientist, I'm just making shiat up.

Oh, and the whole, "There are bigger problems to worry about, so go do something about them" is a logical fallacy of amazingly idiotic proportions. You can make that argument about any field of study.

stainedglassdoll: TheWhaleShark:

...

3) Your health affects the health of the people around you.

....

I mean, I totally understand and agree with you in principle. I'm not really a raw milk advocated, and I'm not hung up on the risks, (like I said, they are risks I'd never personally take), but more on the civil liberties thing. As a public health microbiologist, you're probably the right person to ask: where do you draw the line regarding banning raw milk, eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other well known sources of salmonella, e. coli, and listeria? Is it that the risk for tuberculosis in raw milk is that much greater? I am genuinely curious, and since you are far more knowledgeable/experienced in the subject than I, I'll defer to your judgement.


Well, you can solve the eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other produce problems easily: cook the food. Cooking is a kill step that greatly reduces the bacterial load in a product.

The problem with raw milk is that it skips pasteurization. Hence, there is no kill step applied. And the whole point of raw milk is that people (wrongly) think that pasteurization makes it less wholesome, so they don't want a kill step.

Also, if I could ban the consumption of raw sprouts, I would. Seriously, they're bad news. Don't eat sprouts.

But what's far more likely to work is 1) a nationwide focus on public health education to get consumers adequately prepared to handles these issues and 2) food farking irradiation.

If your food was all irradiated, I would probably not have a job.
 
2012-02-22 02:57:22 PM  

RexTalionis: Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?

Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?


60 fatalities (and 400 illnesses) in a year for a population of approximately 730 million is very small. When you consider 30,000 people in the US (with a population of 310million) die from the flu and on the highways each year it doesn't seem like that big a risk.
 
2012-02-22 02:58:28 PM  
And, uh, raw milk is definitely regulated in Europe. The whole issue is a topic of much debate in places like France and the UK. What you see much more of in Europe is a proliferation of soft-ripened raw milk cheese.

And they actually have higher incidences of gastrointestinal disease than we do.

It is also worth noting that most of these countries have some kind of widely-available health care and robust public health systems. The public health system in the US is sort of a joke.
 
2012-02-22 02:58:54 PM  

TheWhaleShark: ...
Well, you can solve the eggs, meat, leafy greens, sprouts, and other produce problems easily: cook the food. Cooking is a kill step that greatly reduces the bacterial load in a product.

The problem with raw milk is that it skips pasteurization. Hence, there is no kill step applied. And the whole point of raw milk is that people (wrongly) think that pasteurization makes it less wholesome, so they don't want a kill step.

Also, if I could ban the consumption of raw sprouts, I would. Seriously, they're bad news. Don't eat sprouts.

But what's far more likely to work is 1) a nationwide focus on public health education to get consumers adequately prepared to handles these issues and 2) food farking irradiation.

If your food was all irradiated, I would probably not have a job.


Would cooking raw milk, say, through baking, kill everything? If so, could we just market/regulate it as a raw food product with health warnings, like eggs and meat? There would still be people that consume it raw, like people that eat raw eggs, etc, but maybe with increased awareness and education, could the risks be made manageable to the levels of meat and eggs, etc?

And I reluctantly agree about the sprouts. It makes me so sad. :(
 
2012-02-22 03:00:33 PM  

stainedglassdoll:
Come on, man. I know, Welcome to Fark, and all that, but there's no need to disrespect the guy's profession. If microbiology is not a "real science", I wonder what your qualifications for defining "real science" are. I actually enjoy when people who have professional experience with the topic at hand join the thread and offer some real hands-on perspective on the subject matter. You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a change from a bunch of us layman speculating about things.


Well, fair enough, maybe I was a little too trollish there. But to answer your question, I will post this comic, and note that within biology, any sort of "public ___" focus tends to be considered "softer" by those of us who do straight research. Maybe we're just jealous that they actually help people.

math.sfsu.edu

But seriously, if you're going to ban milk, you might as well start making handwashing laws and mandating exercise.
 
2012-02-22 03:01:13 PM  

Carth: RexTalionis: Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?

Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?

60 fatalities (and 400 illnesses) in a year for a population of approximately 730 million is very small. When you consider 30,000 people in the US (with a population of 310million) die from the flu and on the highways each year it doesn't seem like that big a risk.


Not everybody in Europe drink raw milk or eat raw milk products, so using the "population of 730 million" is awfully disingenuous.
 
2012-02-22 03:01:19 PM  

RexTalionis: Carth: Raw milk is legal and unregulated throughout much of Europe. Why don't they see the level of deaths and disease transmission you're describing?

Hasn't there been documented outbreaks of diseases with high mortality like listeriosis that were often linked with consumption of raw milk and raw milk products in Europe?


plus it's not true that europeans don't pasteurize their milk. what is this, the 18th century?? they pasteurize their milk. they pasteurize their apple juice. yes, maybe some farmer over in europe doesn't pasteurize his own milk, but in general everyone does it.
where did you even get the idea that europeans don't pasteurize?

sanitation, it's what makes a country developed.
 
2012-02-22 03:01:54 PM  

inner ted: Splinshints: filter: Inlaws run a dairy operation - I have seen plenty of bucket milk head straight to the kitchen. No one died from it yet.

One of my friends once jumped off a hotel balcony into a swimming pool and didn't die. Since it's clearly safe, I encourage you to try it.

also: i saw that someone once died just crossing the street. better stay indoors.

/also heard that someone died IN THEIR OWN HOME!!!!111!!!!!
//where does it end?



t3.gstatic.com


The buck stops here.
 
2012-02-22 03:01:54 PM  

Rent Party: Tawnos: Rent Party: Nurglitch: PsyLord:

Um, yeah, you know that the sushi, at least, is specially frozen to remove pathogens, right?

What did they do before the advent of refrigeration?

I chill sushi because it is easier to cut when it's cold.

They didn't eat salmon, for one.

Well, perhaps not in the far east, but here in the Northwest, salmon was such an integral part of the native diet they turned the farking thing into a God.

[www.mensaww.org image 325x325]


Raw salmon?

And yeah, I know about Salmon Days, since I live right up the hill ;)
 
2012-02-22 03:01:56 PM  

namegoeshere: Eh. It's legal in my state, sold on the farm only, with posted notice.

I dunno. Having nearly lost babby to foodborne e-coli, watching her scream and writhe in pain, filling diaper after diaper after diaper with bloody shiat, kidney function tests every 12 hours... There's a big part of me who thinks this should be banned. Because just as there are idiot anti-vaxers, there will always be idiot parents who will insist on feeding it to their children. And while you can blood test for alchohol, there is no way to prove that a parent did or didn't feed the kid raw milk.

/did not feed babby undercooked meat or raw milk.
//was careful with food prep before
///is now completely neurotic about it
////not 100% sure where it came from, most likely she touched something touched by someone with it on their hands, and put her hands in her mouth, as kids do.


Sorry about your kid getting so sick! That's gotta be damn scary. I posted a link way upthread about a lady who was paralyzed from drinking raw milk she got at a legal dairy after signing a liability waiver. I wouldn't drink that stuff if it was the only thing to drink in a ten mile radius. They were able to figure out what caused her illness so I say if a kid got sick and they could prove it was from raw milk Jail the idiots who fed the poor kid raw milk for child endangerment and abuse.
 
2012-02-22 03:03:48 PM  

jagec: stainedglassdoll:
Come on, man. I know, Welcome to Fark, and all that, but there's no need to disrespect the guy's profession. If microbiology is not a "real science", I wonder what your qualifications for defining "real science" are. I actually enjoy when people who have professional experience with the topic at hand join the thread and offer some real hands-on perspective on the subject matter. You don't have to agree with it, but at least it's a change from a bunch of us layman speculating about things.


Well, fair enough, maybe I was a little too trollish there. But to answer your question, I will post this comic, and note that within biology, any sort of "public ___" focus tends to be considered "softer" by those of us who do straight research. Maybe we're just jealous that they actually help people.

[math.sfsu.edu image 640x266]

But seriously, if you're going to ban milk, you might as well start making handwashing laws and mandating exercise.


Yea, that's my concern as well. At some point you have to depend on the responsibility of those around you, as unsavory as that may seem.

Also, where does "biomedical engineer" fall on that scale? I know I'm jealous of those that have a real job (and a real salary) compared to grad/post-doc research life :\
 
2012-02-22 03:03:52 PM  

TheWhaleShark: And, uh, raw milk is definitely regulated in Europe. The whole issue is a topic of much debate in places like France and the UK. What you see much more of in Europe is a proliferation of soft-ripened raw milk cheese.

And they actually have higher incidences of gastrointestinal disease than we do.

It is also worth noting that most of these countries have some kind of widely-available health care and robust public health systems. The public health system in the US is sort of a joke.


The Official EU position (new window) is that raw milk is safe for human consumption and additional regulations are not required but allowed by individual countries.

When I was in France and Spain raw milk (and cheese) were readily available at just about any grocery store. If raw milk posed as great a risk as you're saying wouldn't countries with public health care systems be more likely to ban it? Why would they want to continue to sell things that place such a burden on the state run system.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report