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
    More: Stupid, EVAR, Emerging Infectious Diseases, mental healths, milk, Centers for Disease Control  
•       •       •

3992 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Feb 2012 at 12:29 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-02-22 04:43:23 PM  

lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.


if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.
 
2012-02-22 04:44:24 PM  

The_Homeless_Guy: There is evidence that the irradiation process can impact the food. Vitamins A + C seems to be easily degraded. There was the case of cats in Australia getting a demyelination disease from eating a diet that included cat food that had been extensively irradiated.


If this is the case it is easy enough to label the food as having less of the vitamins mentioned than unirradiated versions. Also telling is the phrase I bolded. If I understood what I have read on the subject our food wouldn't undergo such an extensive irradiation process. The article you linked also states "We think it is extremely unlikely that [irradiated food] could become a human health problem," Duncan explains. "We think it is species specific." Still not nearly as bad as being permanently paralyzed from raw milk
 
2012-02-22 04:48:29 PM  

inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.


[citation needed]

And as I said before, unless you milk your cows in a cleanroom, no amount of safe handling practices will reduce the rate of raw milk contamination below that of pasteurized milk. The lack of a kill step means that any environmental cross-contamination will get into the milk. And also remember that a cow can harbor an infection - and thus shed organisms into the milk - that you might not be noticing. Without pasteurization, you'll have nothing between you and the infected cow.

Pasteurization is a condom for milk.
 
2012-02-22 04:49:05 PM  

inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.


As has been stated upthread "Unless you actually decontaminate the cow and milk them in a cleanroom, you'll get environmental cross-contamination. It's a farm. There's shiat everywhere. Literally. The fecal-food contamination route is well-understood in the restaurant industry - it exists in all food production chains." Which would be extremely expensive! Thank you TheWhaleShark for wording that so well
 
2012-02-22 04:55:10 PM  

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

and honey is bee vomit. What's your point?

Honey is not bee vomit. It's nectar from plants, that the bees collect and concentrate via evaporation.

Are you saying the Straight dope (new window) lied to me!?

If one is going by the standard definition of 'vomit', which is a mixture of partially-digested food (and/or beer) and digestive juices, then yes, they lied to you. Read your link - bees have a separate internal receptacle for carrying nectar back to the hive. It is not stored in their stomachs (i.e. organ used for digesting food).

I stand corrected next time I'll say "honey is just regurgitated undigested nectar covered in enzymes that comes out of a bees mouth after being in its honey stomach"


See, now you've forgotten about the "concentrated via evaporation" part. "A" for effort, but "C-" for execution. Don't worry, though - there'll be a makeup quiz tomorrow.

Also-if you're a hot chick, there may be some extra credit work you can do...
 
2012-02-22 04:59:09 PM  

Jubeebee: jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.

You don't see a difference between a baby drinking its mother's milk, and an adult of one species drinking the milk of another species? You think the risks of disease are the same in both cases?


To answer your questions, respectively, "Yes," and "No." It still doesn't change what I was saying.
 
2012-02-22 04:59:57 PM  

lokisbong: inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.

As has been stated upthread "Unless you actually decontaminate the cow and milk them in a cleanroom, you'll get environmental cross-contamination. It's a farm. There's shiat everywhere. Literally. The fecal-food contamination route is well-understood in the restaurant industry - it exists in all food production chains." Which would be extremely expensive! Thank you TheWhaleShark for wording that so well


has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.
 
2012-02-22 05:03:27 PM  

relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.


All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.
 
2012-02-22 05:04:48 PM  

Russ1642: jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.

That's fine. Now should you be allowed to sell it? How about advertizing that it is perfectly safe and healthier for you?


Yes, you should be allowed to sell it. I have no problem making a law that says you have to offer certain disclosures or something, but I'm tired of living in a police state. We have too many laws as it is. Advertising that anything is perfectly safe and healthier is wrong unless there is scientific proof. I don't like false advertising, and nothing is perfectly safe. Raw milk, in many regards, is healthier, but it comes with some risks as with anything. The same could be said about pasteurized milk. "Healthier" is subjective. Let 'em drink raw milk. Natural selection is a good thing.
 
2012-02-22 05:06:09 PM  

lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.


I should have mentioned all those practices are used on the commercial pasteurized milk cows also.
 
2012-02-22 05:06:22 PM  

Rent Party: Well, yeah they did eat it raw. And dried, and smoked, and cured. They ate all kinds of disgusting shiat. Lewis and Clark went to great lengths to describe them eating an elk they had felled. They gutted it, and ate the intestines right out of the animal, all zombie like. Are you suggesting that no one ate fish before refrigeration? Because that's what it sounds like, and that's dumb as all hell.

So, what is your point?


Eating raw fish pre-refrigeration is a good way to get parasites. Salmon was not eaten in sushi: As for salmon, it was never used for sashimi or sushi until very recently. The salmon was considered dangerous to serve for its higher chance of having parasites than bonito, and it was never eaten raw in Japan, but this was not true for the Ainu culture that lives in Northern Japan. They understood for centuries that freezing the salmon in the snow for a couple days makes it edible without any chance of stomach problems. Recent scientific studies concluded that all parasites linked to sushi can be killed off by freezing it at a temperature of -20 degrees Celsius (-4 degrees Fahrenheit) for 24 hours. Nothing tastes better than a pre-frozen fresh sashimi, but freeze treatment is often used on other fishes used for sashimi and sushi just to be extra safe about parasites. The good news is that most seafood have to be freezed anyways when they are transported. The question to ask is at what temperature and how long.
 
2012-02-22 05:10:03 PM  

TheWhaleShark: inner ted: lokisbong: inner ted: exactly: where is the problem??? if farmers adhere to strict protocols of safety (just like these nice folks irradiating things) then why can't their product be "safe" as well??

there will always be those who cut corners and cheat. you just seem to think that this only applies to raw milk farms. i don't share that notion.

Irradiated food is not radioactive! So what's the danger? The only danger is to the people working in the plant if they side step safety protocols which would be like drinking raw milk...Stupid to the extreme. Raw milk can have every safety step taken and still be dangerous so I still don't see where you are coming from.

if every safety step is followed, then raw milk would not pose a threat. your (& others) examples stem from one or more of those safety measures being ignored or followed incorrectly.

you are making it out as something it is not.

as for irradiating food: some (including myself) view that as the nutritional equivalent to eating cardboard. it is a food product devoid of most or all of its nutritional qualities.

[citation needed]

And as I said before, unless you milk your cows in a cleanroom, no amount of safe handling practices will reduce the rate of raw milk contamination below that of pasteurized milk. The lack of a kill step means that any environmental cross-contamination will get into the milk. And also remember that a cow can harbor an infection - and thus shed organisms into the milk - that you might not be noticing. Without pasteurization, you'll have nothing between you and the infected cow.

Pasteurization is a condom for milk.


i know farkers glory moment is being able to write "citation needed" - but consider this: if irradiating food kills the bad bugs, wouldn't it stand to reason that it kills the "good" bugs too? hence rendering it a lifeless foodstuff.

i'll endeavor to link sites n such, but gots to go back to work.
 
2012-02-22 05:10:48 PM  

Oznog: jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.

Mom's teat is safe because mom doesn't have Listeria (Listeriosis). Well, unless she's been drinking raw milk. Then, yes, her teat may be poison.

It's an interesting question how far the government needs to go to protect people from themselves. But that's WHAT THE FDA DOES. For backstory, look back to the days of patent medicine, where like 60% of the products on the shelf had no active ingredients (snake oil, still exists as "homeopathic medicine"), 30% were cocaine, alcohol, or amphetamine being sold as medical cures for "whatever", and 10% were just plain poisonous and could do things like destroy kidneys or the liver with alarming consistency.

I do not doubt there's a basis for a mandate for the government to protect people from themselves. How far to take it is up for debate. But the danger of raw milk is well documented, whereas the purported benefits are not.


Sometimes natural selection is a good thing, so I'd prefer we stop creating laws that protect people from themselves. The reason there are problems with raw milk all boils down to proper farming techniques, safe handling, processing/bottling, transportation, storage, etc. Raw milk *can* be safe. Perhaps the better solution would be to allow people to drink/buy raw milk with a warning label, so our freedom/right to put what we want in our body is not infringed upon even more than it already is.
 
2012-02-22 05:16:26 PM  

namegoeshere: : jjwars1 : The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.


Does one suck the milk directly from the teat of one specific cow who sees a doctor regularly and is in good health, washes at least daily, shiats in a place far removed from where it stands, and keeps its udder clean under protective garments?

Because otherwise there is no comparison.


I wasn't trying to compare human milk to other animal milk, but rather pointing out that the milk coming out of the human teat is raw milk as well. The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc
 
2012-02-22 05:20:15 PM  
Just gonna qoute this again for

jjwars1: Sometimes natural selection is a good thing, so I'd prefer we stop creating laws that protect people from themselves. The reason there are problems with raw milk all boils down to proper farming techniques, safe handling, processing/bottling, transportation, storage, etc. Raw milk *can* be safe. Perhaps the better solution would be to allow people to drink/buy raw milk with a warning label, so our freedom/right to put what we want in our body is not infringed upon even more than it already is.


TheWhaleShark: 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 it seems to me it is risking others health also if you drink Raw Milk. You just go on think drinking raw milk can be safe. The research says otherwise.
 
2012-02-22 05:23:02 PM  
But explain this: I had a small penis and AIDS, and then I drank raw milk. Now my penis is enormous and guess what? No more AIDS.
 
2012-02-22 05:25:23 PM  

jjwars1: The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc


Have you ever been to a dairy farm? I have. They tend to be covered in cow shiat. Cows and everyone who works there walk around in ankle deep shiat all day long. They pasteurize milk because you cannot keep a cow clean enough to be safe without clean room standards and those very expensive and would probably at least double the cost of milk products and reduce production because fully sterilizing a cow would take a lot longer per cow.
 
2012-02-22 05:30:35 PM  

lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.



I skimmed the link. how do you know what precautions EcoDairy was required to use use and did or did not use? I didn't see the article mention anything about regulations, except that I thought I saw a claim that unpasteurized farmers tend to use loopholes to skirt regulations.

and it was one farm was responsible for getting 16 people sick.

wouldn't it make more sense that this farm had a shiat safety program, or a lax farmhand, than that the farm had a really aggressive safety program and a particulate of dried cow dung just randomly floating through the air happened to land on something a few seconds between the cleaning process and the coupling of the cow to the machine enough times to make at least 16 different people sick enough to report their medical problems to authorities?
 
2012-02-22 05:37:55 PM  

jjwars1: I wasn't trying to compare human milk to other animal milk, but rather pointing out that the milk coming out of the human teat is raw milk as well. The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc


No, it's not. And many upthread have explained why. It is impossible to extract milk in conditions clean enough to make it safe. And even were it possible, infection can still come directly from the cow, through the milk.

jjwars1: Raw milk, in many regards, is healthier


Citation needed. I'll go first, from the CDC:

Does pasteurization change milk's nutritional benefits?

No. Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk of disease that comes with drinking raw milk.

Is it true that raw milk has more enzymes and nutrients than pasteurized milk?

While it's true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health. Some nutrients are somewhat reduced in raw milk, but the United States diet generally has plenty of other sources of these nutrients. For example, vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization, but raw milk is not a major source of vitamin C.
(new window)
 
2012-02-22 05:39:49 PM  

relcec: lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.


I skimmed the link. how do you know what precautions EcoDairy was required to use use and did or did not use? I didn't see the article mention anything about regulations, except that I thought I saw a claim that unpasteurized farmers tend to use loopholes to skirt regulations.

and it was one farm was responsible for getting 16 people sick.

wouldn't it make more sense that this farm had a shiat safety program, or a lax farmhand, than that the farm had a really aggressive safety program and a particulate of dried cow dung just randomly floating through the air happened to land on something a few seconds between the cleaning process and the coupling of the cow to the machine enough times to make at least 16 different people sick enough to report their medical problems to authorities?


I have been to the dairy in question and watched them work. I was there to do some flooring repairs and we had to pass the milking area during the milking process. Since I had never seen how it was done before I stopped for a few and watched. There was no dried dung anywhere. Cow shiat in a dairy farm environment tends to be a soupy mud every where you look. Especially in northern California where it rains a lot.
 
2012-02-22 05:51:32 PM  
From what dairy folks around here have told me, FRESH unpasteurised milk, with a sufficiently low pathogen count, is not a threat to healthy people. Several ifs there. So it's not that it's necessary bad for you, but that it's hard to know if it is.
 
2012-02-22 05:53:17 PM  

lokisbong: relcec: lokisbong: relcec: has anyone ever tried requiring the farmer to wash the cow tit, then apply an iodine solution, then get a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to do the pumping? or do they just require the same procedures used for regular milking? just because something hasn't been attempted that doesn't make it impossible or necessarily even difficult.

All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread. A lady ended up paralyzed anyway. The only difference between the raw milk she drank and the pasteurized milk they sold to stores was the skipping of the pasteurization process. It all even came from the same cows on the same milking machines.


I skimmed the link. how do you know what precautions EcoDairy was required to use use and did or did not use? I didn't see the article mention anything about regulations, except that I thought I saw a claim that unpasteurized farmers tend to use loopholes to skirt regulations.

and it was one farm was responsible for getting 16 people sick.

wouldn't it make more sense that this farm had a shiat safety program, or a lax farmhand, than that the farm had a really aggressive safety program and a particulate of dried cow dung just randomly floating through the air happened to land on something a few seconds between the cleaning process and the coupling of the cow to the machine enough times to make at least 16 different people sick enough to report their medical problems to authorities?

I have been to the dairy in question and watched them work. I was there to do some flooring repairs and we had to pass the milking area during the milking process. Since I had never seen how it was done before I stopped for a few and watched. There was no dried dung anywhere. Cow shiat in a dairy farm environment tends to be a soupy mud every where you look. Especially in northern California where it rains a lot.


wait, just a few minutes ago you were claiming that the farm in question had a QA method of washing the cow tits, then applying an iodine solution, then using a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to the cow and that this was in the article. right? now you are saying you've been to the farm so that's how you know everything they do or do not do there and furthermore you know that their quality assurance process was never lacking?
 
2012-02-22 06:01:01 PM  
lokisbong,
if there truly is not a process by which farmers could ever make unpasteurized milk relatively safe, how do you explain that some farms don't appear to ever make people sick and others, like the one you went to, cause mass outbreaks and paralyze people? shouldn't all farms cause at least some illness, paralysis, and death? shouldn't we be seeing dozens and dozens of articles like the one you linked? how are some farms avoiding paralyzing people?
 
2012-02-22 06:05:54 PM  

relcec: wait, just a few minutes ago you were claiming that the farm in question had a QA method of washing the cow tits, then applying an iodine solution, then using a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to the cow and that this was in the article. right? now you are saying you've been to the farm so that's how you know everything they do or do not do there and furthermore you know that their quality assurance process was never lacking?


Learn to read. I never said any of the cleaning process was even mentioned in the article. I have been there though and seen them cleaning the cows and equipment prior to milking a cow. I said and I quote myself here from your comment even "All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread". It doesn't say the article states that. I stated that because I have seen them i being used in person. No I cannot attest to their following these guidelines 100% and I never claimed that either.

Go ahead drink raw milk I don't give a fark. I won't do it because I don't want to die or be paralyzed from it.
 
2012-02-22 06:21:52 PM  

RexTalionis: 1) He was using round numbers to demonstrate a theoretical point.
2) Your reading comprehension is abysmal.


A hypothetical example should not lead a person to a conclusion. The argument about non-pasteurized milk is about the balance of personal freedoms with the dangers to society. It's about society's tolerance to danger and that tolerance is based on the perceived danger of an issue. Taking the absolute argument for either side is stupid. You should never argue that the needs of society always out way the desires of the individual - we'll then have a freaky ant-like dystopian society control by some all knowing central computer/brain. And in the same vain we cannot always give in the desires of the individuals over the safety of society - we'll then have a polluted, psychotic Mad Max world, where the average life expectancy is about 12.

I am not claiming it's a simple issue. And I see the arguments for both sides. Thank you to people from both sides who have educated in this thread about the issue.
 
2012-02-22 06:23:02 PM  

lokisbong: relcec: wait, just a few minutes ago you were claiming that the farm in question had a QA method of washing the cow tits, then applying an iodine solution, then using a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to the cow and that this was in the article. right? now you are saying you've been to the farm so that's how you know everything they do or do not do there and furthermore you know that their quality assurance process was never lacking?

Learn to read. I never said any of the cleaning process was even mentioned in the article. I have been there though and seen them cleaning the cows and equipment prior to milking a cow. I said and I quote myself here from your comment even "All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread". It doesn't say the article states that. I stated that because I have seen them i being used in person. No I cannot attest to their following these guidelines 100% and I never claimed that either.

Go ahead drink raw milk I don't give a fark. I won't do it because I don't want to die or be paralyzed from it.


you watched them apply the iodine, and wash the cow tit? you saw the suction cup come directly out of the autoclave machine? you know what processes they use to ensure that their holding tanks and piping are cleaned of bacteria regularly? to clean the milking room? you know how often the state inspects them? how much more rigorous unpasteurized inspections are compared to regular cow milking operations in california, if at all?
no, you just watched them milk a cow for a few minutes and then implied they were doing all that was within human power to create a safe product and therefore it was impossible for anyone anywhere to ever create a safe product but never bothered to tell us that your belief was based on this one time when you watched this once place milk that cow for 5 minutes.
 
2012-02-22 06:29:01 PM  
require a rigorous safety program. inspect as frequently as necessary to ensure compliance. place a reasonable tax on the product to pay for the enhanced monitoring program.
or just irradiate it like the scientist said.
 
2012-02-22 06:29:22 PM  

relcec: lokisbong,
if there truly is not a process by which farmers could ever make unpasteurized milk relatively safe, how do you explain that some farms don't appear to ever make people sick and others, like the one you went to, cause mass outbreaks and paralyze people? shouldn't all farms cause at least some illness, paralysis, and death? shouldn't we be seeing dozens and dozens of articles like the one you linked? how are some farms avoiding paralyzing people?


Paralysis is rare, occurring in 1-2 in 100,000 cases (Link (new window))

And how do you know under reporting is not occurring? How many seek out doctor's assistance if they get the runs? Also, the case in Del Norte flew under the radar due to bureaucratic bungling.

Drink it as an adult, I may think such a person is a moron, but my feelings don't carry the weight of the law. But we are required to some extent to not put our children in danger if reasonable alternatives exist. I don't see the need to risk it with raw milk.

Apply the precautionary principle to consuming raw milk versus pasteurized, and see what you get out of it.
 
2012-02-22 06:40:27 PM  

lokisbong: jjwars1: The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc

Have you ever been to a dairy farm? I have. They tend to be covered in cow shiat. Cows and everyone who works there walk around in ankle deep shiat all day long. They pasteurize milk because you cannot keep a cow clean enough to be safe without clean room standards and those very expensive and would probably at least double the cost of milk products and reduce production because fully sterilizing a cow would take a lot longer per cow.


All very true. I wouldn't drink raw milk from a mass production facility for those very reasons. Proper farming techniques for raw milk does not include mass production facilities.
 
2012-02-22 06:43:22 PM  

lokisbong: Just gonna qoute this again for jjwars1: Sometimes natural selection is a good thing, so I'd prefer we stop creating laws that protect people from themselves. The reason there are problems with raw milk all boils down to proper farming techniques, safe handling, processing/bottling, transportation, storage, etc. Raw milk *can* be safe. Perhaps the better solution would be to allow people to drink/buy raw milk with a warning label, so our freedom/right to put what we want in our body is not infringed upon even more than it already is.

TheWhaleShark: 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 it seems to me it is risking others health also if you drink Raw Milk. You just go on think drinking raw milk can be safe. The research says otherwise.


Good points, but how did M. bovis contaminate the milk? Poor farming techniques.
 
2012-02-22 06:44:49 PM  

relcec: lokisbong: relcec: wait, just a few minutes ago you were claiming that the farm in question had a QA method of washing the cow tits, then applying an iodine solution, then using a freshly cleaned and steamed suction cup to the cow and that this was in the article. right? now you are saying you've been to the farm so that's how you know everything they do or do not do there and furthermore you know that their quality assurance process was never lacking?

Learn to read. I never said any of the cleaning process was even mentioned in the article. I have been there though and seen them cleaning the cows and equipment prior to milking a cow. I said and I quote myself here from your comment even "All of the practices you mention were being used in the case I linked upthread". It doesn't say the article states that. I stated that because I have seen them i being used in person. No I cannot attest to their following these guidelines 100% and I never claimed that either.

Go ahead drink raw milk I don't give a fark. I won't do it because I don't want to die or be paralyzed from it.

you watched them apply the iodine, and wash the cow tit?

Yes you saw the suction cup come directly out of the autoclave machine? I'm not sure any dairy uses an autoclave for every cow. But I did see them pull the teat cup thing from what I assumed was a cleaning solution. you know what processes they use to ensure that their holding tanks and piping are cleaned of bacteria regularly? to clean the milking room? you know how often the state inspects them?regularly like every other dairy. no not exactly how often. how much more rigorous unpasteurized inspections are compared to regular cow milking operations in california, if at all?
no, you just watched them milk a cow for a few minutes and then implied they were doing all that was within human power to create a safe product and therefore it was impossible for anyone anywhere to ever create a safe product but never bothered to tell us that your belief was based on this one time when you watched this once place milk that cow for 5 minutes.


If you are gonna just add shiat to what I say why do you need me at all? Nobody has ever gotten sick from the pasteurized milk from the same dairy in the almost 20 years I lived in the area that I heard about. So I would say their holding tanks and stuff and their cleaning regimen were just fine. Their Raw milk program was a new thing they had just started a few months before the problems happened. Raw milk can contain bacteria from the cow itself not just from stuff flying around in the air. If you don't agree have at the raw milk. I already said I couldn't give a fark if you do. I will not risk it.
 
2012-02-22 06:50:17 PM  

jjwars1: lokisbong: jjwars1: The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc

Have you ever been to a dairy farm? I have. They tend to be covered in cow shiat. Cows and everyone who works there walk around in ankle deep shiat all day long. They pasteurize milk because you cannot keep a cow clean enough to be safe without clean room standards and those very expensive and would probably at least double the cost of milk products and reduce production because fully sterilizing a cow would take a lot longer per cow.

All very true. I wouldn't drink raw milk from a mass production facility for those very reasons. Proper farming techniques for raw milk does not include mass production facilities.


Yet.

We already see it with organic farming. Larger industrial operations are outpacing the smaller growers because there is a market for this stuff and the big boys want a chunk of it.

If a legitimate direct to consumer market for raw milk appears profitable, the big dairy operations will want in on it.

On the other hand, they do not want raw milk sold at all, because people won't hear "Raw milk sickens 500", they'll hear "Milk sickens 500" and not drink regular milk for a while.


As a side note, the larger organic growers can also provide retailers with "perfect" produce by sorting the good and the bad and sending unpresentable fruits and veggies to be processed into canned and other food rather than sold fresh. This further damages the local grower by producing unrealistic consumer expectations. Maybe it's getting better, but I still see people at farmer's markets pouring over the tomatoes looking for perfect ones.
 
2012-02-22 06:50:50 PM  

namegoeshere: jjwars1: I wasn't trying to compare human milk to other animal milk, but rather pointing out that the milk coming out of the human teat is raw milk as well. The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc

No, it's not. And many upthread have explained why. It is impossible to extract milk in conditions clean enough to make it safe. And even were it possible, infection can still come directly from the cow, through the milk.

jjwars1: Raw milk, in many regards, is healthier

Citation needed. I'll go first, from the CDC:

Does pasteurization change milk's nutritional benefits?

No. Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk of disease that comes with drinking raw milk.

Is it true that raw milk has more enzymes and nutrients than pasteurized milk?

While it's true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health. Some nutrients are somewhat reduced in raw milk, but the United States diet generally has plenty of other sources of these nutrients. For example, vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization, but raw milk is not a major source of vitamin C.
(new window)


The material you just quoted also goes to support what I said. Look, "Healthier" is subjective as it depends on each person's body and health. That's why it may be healthier for lactose intolerant people to avoid milk products, while at the same time being healthier for someone lacking vitamin D to drink milk.

I'm not saying let's not pasteurize or homogenize our milk, but people should have the option to get raw milk if they want.
 
2012-02-22 07:01:46 PM  

Wolfy: The argument about non-pasteurized milk is about the balance of personal freedoms with the dangers to society.


Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.
 
2012-02-22 07:03:39 PM  
Milk, milk, lemonade...
 
2012-02-22 07:11:23 PM  

micah1701: 60/39 = 153%.

PERCENT != TIMES

The lead headline should read "Unpasteurized milk, touted as the ultimate health food by some, is 1.5 times more likely to cause food-borne illness outbreaks than pasteurized milk"


But raw milk drinkers only make up 1% of the population, 99% drink pasteurized (per the article,) so what you really have is (60/39)*99 = 152+ TIMES as likely.

You get it now?
 
2012-02-22 07:28:51 PM  

RexTalionis: Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.


Very well said!

I just can't believe the way some people get bent out of shape over a public safety thing calling it a personal freedom issue. I say to you morons who want to drink Unpasteurized milk...Go ahead and drink raw milk but like I said earlier don't biatch at me when it kills or paralyzes you or your freakin kids.
 
2012-02-22 07:40:02 PM  

jjwars1: namegoeshere: jjwars1: I wasn't trying to compare human milk to other animal milk, but rather pointing out that the milk coming out of the human teat is raw milk as well. The difference, as you pointed out, is cleanliness. Raw milk produced on a farm that uses proper farming and handling techniques is relatively safe, and not reason for people to get so threatened by it. If people want to drink raw milk let them. If you wanted to drink pasteurized milk nobody is stopping you. Too many laws, natural selection, etc, etc

No, it's not. And many upthread have explained why. It is impossible to extract milk in conditions clean enough to make it safe. And even were it possible, infection can still come directly from the cow, through the milk.

jjwars1: Raw milk, in many regards, is healthier

Citation needed. I'll go first, from the CDC:

Does pasteurization change milk's nutritional benefits?

No. Many studies have shown that pasteurization does not significantly change the nutritional value of milk and dairy products. All of the nutritional benefits of drinking milk are available from pasteurized milk without the risk of disease that comes with drinking raw milk.

Is it true that raw milk has more enzymes and nutrients than pasteurized milk?

While it's true that the heating process of pasteurization does inactivate some enzymes in milk, the enzymes in raw animal milk are not thought to be important in human health. Some nutrients are somewhat reduced in raw milk, but the United States diet generally has plenty of other sources of these nutrients. For example, vitamin C is reduced by pasteurization, but raw milk is not a major source of vitamin C.
(new window)

The material you just quoted also goes to support what I said. Look, "Healthier" is subjective as it depends on each person's body and health. That's why it may be healthier for lactose intolerant people to avoid milk products, while at the same time being healthier for someone lacking vitamin D to dri ...


And feed it to their children?
 
2012-02-22 08:00:08 PM  

RexTalionis: Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.


I am not free to drink non-pasturied milk if I cannot acquire it. It's like saying I was free to drink coca cola in the Soviet Union when it was explicitly forbidden to be imported into the county. It is illegal to sell it and there by nearly impossible for me to acquire (unless I go through the expenses of raising my own cows- and even than, in Canada, that will get me in trouble).

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.

I partially agree. Public health policy experts decided that making unpasturized milk legal for sale creates too much risk to society. The decision to make it illegal to sell is based on the fact these expets believe that risks it posses to society greatly outweigh the benefits it will offer to society. I guess this is where I disagree. I think you would agree that alcohol, cars, vegetables and raw meat all pose much greater health threat to society. However, their perceived benefits to society make them allowed legal. Especially in the case of cars and alcohol it would be hard to argue that the health benefits are not counterweighed by "freedom" concerns.
 
2012-02-22 08:02:03 PM  
^ wow, terrible grammar. I need some rest. Sorry about that.
 
2012-02-22 08:07:00 PM  

Wolfy: RexTalionis: Bah. The personal freedoms thing.

Look, you're free to eat anything you want, drink anything you want, whatever. There is no law on the books that controls personal behavior of the consumers to drink raw milk.

I am not free to drink non-pasturied milk if I cannot acquire it. It's like saying I was free to drink coca cola in the Soviet Union when it was explicitly forbidden to be imported into the county. It is illegal to sell it and there by nearly impossible for me to acquire (unless I go through the expenses of raising my own cows- and even than, in Canada, that will get me in trouble).

There are laws, however, controlling the standard of goods that producers sell to the public. This isn't a personal freedoms issue, it's a regulation of commerce issue and public health policy.

I partially agree. Public health policy experts decided that making unpasturized milk legal for sale creates too much risk to society. The decision to make it illegal to sell is based on the fact these expets believe that risks it posses to society greatly outweigh the benefits it will offer to society. I guess this is where I disagree. I think you would agree that alcohol, cars, vegetables and raw meat all pose much greater health threat to society. However, their perceived benefits to society make them allowed legal. Especially in the case of cars and alcohol it would be hard to argue that the health benefits are not counterweighed by "freedom" concerns.


Let's put it this way, can we be in agreement that governments regulate the quality of alcohol, cars, vegetable and raw meat? And that this is a permissible function of the government?

Does the government allow producers to sell substandard alcohol, cars, vegetables and raw meat? Does the government allow producers to make and sell, for example, wine with antifreeze in it? Or cars without seat belts? Or listeria-tainted vegetables? Or rotting meat?

The answer, of course, is no.

Raw milk isn't a product by itself. It's a substandard and potentially dangerous version of consumable milk. While, yes, alcohol is dangerous, the government still has an interest in limiting the dangers to consumers. That's why tainted alcohol or adulterated alcohol isn't allowed to be sold. And no, producers have no personal freedoms to sell something that is deliberately substandard.
 
2012-02-22 08:08:18 PM  

jjwars1: Oznog: jjwars1: The largest reason raw milk is dangerous is because people don't know how to handle it or extract it without contamination. Babies drink raw milk all the time from mother's teat. The "OMG raw milk will kill you crowd" is silly. If people want to drink raw milk let them. The risks are there. Big deal. Driving or riding in a car is more dangerous. Go worry about something else.

Mom's teat is safe because mom doesn't have Listeria (Listeriosis). Well, unless she's been drinking raw milk. Then, yes, her teat may be poison.

It's an interesting question how far the government needs to go to protect people from themselves. But that's WHAT THE FDA DOES. For backstory, look back to the days of patent medicine, where like 60% of the products on the shelf had no active ingredients (snake oil, still exists as "homeopathic medicine"), 30% were cocaine, alcohol, or amphetamine being sold as medical cures for "whatever", and 10% were just plain poisonous and could do things like destroy kidneys or the liver with alarming consistency.

I do not doubt there's a basis for a mandate for the government to protect people from themselves. How far to take it is up for debate. But the danger of raw milk is well documented, whereas the purported benefits are not.

Sometimes natural selection is a good thing, so I'd prefer we stop creating laws that protect people from themselves. The reason there are problems with raw milk all boils down to proper farming techniques, safe handling, processing/bottling, transportation, storage, etc. Raw milk *can* be safe. Perhaps the better solution would be to allow people to drink/buy raw milk with a warning label, so our freedom/right to put what we want in our body is not infringed upon even more than it already is.


But paradoxically the measures which DO effectively make milk safe are the very ones they're eschewing. They're defining themselves by their unsafe practices. And the observation here is that you can talk about hypotheticals of how the cows COULD be tested daily for brucellosis, listeria, etc, but the bottom line is that they've been given the leeway to be self-policing in a sensitive environment where they should be really on-their-toes about safety. Yet the rate of disease it causes is still very high. WYSIWYG.

Hey I was raised on POWDERED milk... my grandma got in trouble when she gave me whole milk (homogenized) and I just lit up WHAT IS THIS? WHAT IS THIS?? GIVE ME MORE!!! MOM MOM THIS MILK IS REALLY GOOD WE NEED TO GET SOME!!

I'm saying I already found The Good Stuff, the Holy Grail of milk. I'm good. I don't need to engage in these high-risk games over foodian perceived value in "slightly different" milk.
 
2012-02-22 08:11:52 PM  

Oznog: Hey I was raised on POWDERED milk... my grandma got in trouble when she gave me whole milk (homogenized) and I just lit up WHAT IS THIS? WHAT IS THIS?? GIVE ME MORE!!! MOM MOM THIS MILK IS REALLY GOOD WE NEED TO GET SOME!!


When I drank milk (this was when I was 2 or 3), I actually prefered powdered milk. And the milk we got, which was rationed to us by the communist government in China (a block of frozen milk roughly the size of a hard drive every weekday), was always boiled, which I thought made it taste much better.

/I dunno, CSB, or something. I'm doing my wearing-my-onions-on-my-belt schtick again.
 
2012-02-22 08:39:44 PM  

RexTalionis: Raw milk isn't a product by itself. It's a substandard and potentially dangerous version of consumable milk.


I guess that is where our opinions diverge. I do not see raw milk as a defective product in itself. I agree that it's production is riskier (which is why I wouldn't drink it more than a few times in a lifetime). I see it more akin to a sporty car or a very strong liquor.

I am all for very stringent standards to ensure that the milk sold is within an acceptable safety limit. Likewise, I am happy that my sporty car comes with a safty belt... Maybe even a four point harness if it I will use it for racing. However, I see forcing pasturiazation of milk is like forcing all car producers to make cars have 50 miles per hour speed limit or all acohol have a maximum
 
2012-02-22 08:40:39 PM  

Rent Party: 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.

My first jobs were in dairy. I would like to not thank you for taking me back to the good old days.

Cows are filthy, stupid beasts happy to wallow in their own shiat.


Having a) lived next to a working cattle farm much of my childhood and early adulthood and b) having in-laws who raise Jersey cattle, pretty much this too--and thank you for the Cliff's Notes version of what I was trying to note in the LAST Raw Milk Thread (cows are functionally incontinent, shiat all over themselves and anything around them, can't be housebroken, and pastures in and of themselves have a pretty damn high moo-cow coliform count to the point there's no way I'd ever trust raw milk because you can't really bottle it in a sterile manner and you can't trust there's not cow shiat bacteria in it).
 
2012-02-22 08:41:09 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: And regular milk's likelihood of killing you is?


Done in one. Thank imaginary Christ for that one.
 
2012-02-23 04:06:03 AM  

Kazan: Teknowaffle: If you are over 16 there is no reason to drink milk. Grow up and eat real cheese.

ok flabby...

Link (new window)


Kazan,
Clear something up for me; Did you really put all of the time and effort into posting a well-thought-out argument for the health benefits of meat and dairy, complete with citations, only to follow up with a link to WIKIPEDIA as your resource?

You're joking, right?

If not, check out Eating Animals, by Jonathon Safran Foer. It's one example of a book that cites several studies that find HIGHER rates of illnesses such as heart disease and diabetes among those who consume meat and dairy when compared to those who don't.

Either way, I got a good laugh!
 
2012-02-23 04:23:04 AM  
I have a video of Kate Upton pouring milk slowly over her chest from a frosted pitcher. But it's pasteurized and homogenized so I guess I'lll delete it now. Too bad, I was gonna share it.
 
2012-02-23 06:04:49 AM  
let me make this clear. bacteria is IN THE MILK. it can come from outside but it is also IN THE MILK.. therefore, any sanitation you provide will do nothing. the bacteria that cause tuberculosis in a cow can also infect you.
 
2012-02-23 09:43:23 AM  
I was biatching about my friend upthread and said I hope her kids don't get some disease/reaction on my watch, and my son woke up with some horrendous, itchy rash all over his body.

He NEVER gets sick.

Fark you karma.
 
Displayed 50 of 301 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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