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.

(Natural News)   Arkansas decides it's okay for citizens to suck on a tit not owned by the federal government   (naturalnews.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Arkansas, federal government, Mike Beebe, legal defense fund, farms  
•       •       •

3279 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Sep 2013 at 10:09 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-14 09:01:59 AM  
I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.
 
2013-09-14 10:05:11 AM  

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


Unless it is a kid getting sick, then treat the kid and call child services on the parents
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-14 10:12:33 AM  
This is why we need the individual mandate.  otherwise these people will turn up at the emergency room with no insurance and stick the rest of us with the expense.
 
2013-09-14 10:20:40 AM  
It's like they have completely forgot the last 100 years or so and why we do things the way we do. Louis Pasteur would be hanging his head in shame.
 
2013-09-14 10:22:33 AM  
Enjoy your TB, dipshiats. 

Just FYI, the medication required to treat that costs a fortune, makes you nauseous as hell, can give you heptatis, and oh: you have to take it for 4 - 12 months.

Or, you could, you know...PASTEURIZE YOUR farkING MILK. Or move to your choice of developing countries; you can get all the raw milk there that you want.
 
2013-09-14 10:27:44 AM  
this is another of those things that keeps proving to me what I have always thought - most people are farking stupid.
 
2013-09-14 10:28:14 AM  

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


Same thing for folks that ride motorcycles without helmets so they can feel the wind in their hair and asphalt on their basal ganglia.
 
2013-09-14 10:28:40 AM  
"Thank you Jesus, we don't have to drive to
another state and bootleg raw milk anymore," wrote one commenter on a recent announcement posted at A Campaign for Real Milk, a project of The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF). "This is a great day in Arkansas!"

Yes, the power of Christ compels you to dismiss more than a century of understanding of germ theory, and the reason pasteurization was invented, because of something you read on a website sidebar.
 
2013-09-14 10:33:43 AM  
This is one step on the glorious road to 45 year life expectancy!  Keep going Arkansas!  Don't stop till we hit 35!
 
2013-09-14 10:34:42 AM  
"Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.
 
2013-09-14 10:39:25 AM  
I would to be able to buy raw milk. I would make some kick ass homemade cheese.
 
2013-09-14 10:41:28 AM  
Subby, I see nothing here that has anything to download with the FEDERAL government. Are you just that excited about posting stories that you think are Anti-Obama that you don't even read them first to make sure?
 
2013-09-14 10:45:47 AM  
Previously, Arkansans wanting raw cow's milk had to either bootleg their milk from nearby states with fewer authoritarian restrictions [...]

Jack-booted thugs with their forced pasteurization of undesirable elements.
 
2013-09-14 10:48:03 AM  

notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.


I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.
 
2013-09-14 10:54:25 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.


I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.
 
2013-09-14 10:56:10 AM  

buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.


I'm all about natural health remedies.  Preferably after their active components have been isolated and their therapeutic effectiveness verified in double-blind clinical testing.
 
2013-09-14 10:57:03 AM  

buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.


What the fark is a naturopath?
 
2013-09-14 11:05:44 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.


I knew a guy who had an actual gluten allergy. I recall watching him, well just hearing actually, vomit violently after eating an orzo dish that he thought was rice. This was over a decade ago so well before the anti-gluten bs started.

Glutten allergies do exist but are not as common as people who claim to have them. If glutten was bad for us surely there would be some evidence in the 10,000+ year history of human agriculture.
 
2013-09-14 11:08:37 AM  

qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?


Quack Medicine.
 
2013-09-14 11:09:00 AM  
Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.
 
2013-09-14 11:09:29 AM  

qorkfiend: What the fark is a naturopath?


From Wiki -   Naturopathy, ornaturopathic medicine, is a form of based on a belief in, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as, reproduction, growth, and adaptation. Naturopathy favors a approach with non-invasive treatment and generally avoids the use of and. Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common.

In other words, someone who believes in magic.
 
2013-09-14 11:11:36 AM  
Can we stop greening links from Natural Nut? It's the WND for crazy "green" persons.
 
2013-09-14 11:12:08 AM  
These people selling raw milk should be put in prison.  Also, we should legalize drugs.
 
2013-09-14 11:12:10 AM  

qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?


My post got garbled... Its New Age Quackery.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturopathy


  Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a form of alternative medicine based on a belief in vitalism, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as metabolism, reproduction, growth, and adaptation.[1] Naturopathy favors a holistic approach with non-invasive treatment and generally avoids the use of surgery and drugs.[2] Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism



Vitalism is the doctrine, often advocated in the past but now rejected by mainstream science,[1] that "living organisms are fundamentally different from non-living entities because they contain some non-physical element or are governed by different principles than are inanimate things".[2] Where vitalism explicitly invokes a vital principle, that element is often referred to as the "vital spark", "energy" or "élan vital", which some equate with the soul.

Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies: most traditional healing practices posited that disease results from some imbalance in vital forces. In the Western tradition founded by Hippocrates, these vital forces were associated with the four temperaments and humours; Eastern traditions posited an imbalance or blocking of qi (or prana).

 
2013-09-14 11:12:28 AM  

Albino Squid: Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.


What makes people go this crazy?
 
2013-09-14 11:12:31 AM  
Also, Fark stripped some of the html and text from my copy-paste job and farked it up, but you get the idea.
 
2013-09-14 11:15:08 AM  

Maturin: dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.

Same thing for folks that ride motorcycles without helmets so they can feel the wind in their hair and asphalt on their basal ganglia.


Yes, they pay motorcycle insurance - and in MI anyway they pay extra for their helmetless stupidity.
 
2013-09-14 11:16:49 AM  

Into the blue again: It's like they have completely forgot the last 100 years or so and why we do things the way we do. Louis Pasteur would be hanging his head in shame.


It's not so much forgetting as: FDA = safety regulations, safety regulations=government, government=bad, FDA=bad.

Hence, "let's endanger our health, cuz the government can't tell us not to."
 
2013-09-14 11:19:53 AM  

qorkfiend: Albino Squid: Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.

What makes people go this crazy?


Probably the after effect of some avoidable childhood disease they had.
 
2013-09-14 11:21:00 AM  

qorkfiend: Albino Squid: Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.

What makes people go this crazy?


It makes life understandable and requires very little thought.

I would say 'eh let them have their fantasy world' but it always spills over on to the kids or community in some way.
 
2013-09-14 11:22:55 AM  

qorkfiend: What makes people go this crazy?


most people are stupid and will believe practically anything that someone that SOUNDS like they know what they are talking about says, even if it is certifiable nonsense.

See - crap about immunizations, gluten, Scientology, ghosts, psychic ability, magic, Martin\Zimmerman case....
 
2013-09-14 11:24:18 AM  

Smackledorfer: I would say 'eh let them have their fantasy world' but it always spills over on to the kids or community in some way.


At least their cancers will be leavened properly for that perfect consistency.
 
2013-09-14 11:27:51 AM  
I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.
 
2013-09-14 11:31:23 AM  

qorkfiend: Albino Squid: Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.

What makes people go this crazy?


In my sister's case, it's the fact that she's stubborn and it fits her worldview. And because she's stubborn, linking her to things that disprove the nonsense that she reads on sites like Natural News only causes her to dig in her heels.
 
2013-09-14 11:32:46 AM  

stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.


Goats and cows are somewhat different creatures.
 
2013-09-14 11:32:55 AM  

max_pooper: Glutten allergies do exist but are not as common as people who claim to have them. If glutten was bad for us surely there would be some evidence in the 10,000+ year history of human agriculture.


Celiac disease is genetically caused and affects about 1% of the US population. Another 4% or so now self-report an undiagnosable "gluten intolerance."

In a recent marketing poll, 30% of Americans say they're trying to cut down or eliminate gluten from their diets. Thanks to marketers, they're now convinced it's like cholesterol, something that does cumulative damage over time.
 
2013-09-14 11:34:49 AM  

qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?


An idiot.
 
2013-09-14 11:34:52 AM  

stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.


Well not everyone in times past died because of a lack of understanding of germ theory so all hygiene in hospitals and food standards should not be regulated and are obviously useless.
 
2013-09-14 11:34:55 AM  
*ahem*
Subby dear, the correct word is 'teat', pronounced 'tit'.
 
2013-09-14 11:37:43 AM  

stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.


That wasn't milk. They got it from the male goats.
 
2013-09-14 11:38:11 AM  

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


Would it surprise you to learn that more people have gotten sick from pasteurized milk on a per serving basis than from raw milk?

I used to get a cold or flu bout about 3-4 times a year and I thought that was normal. In my 50s I discovered and started drinking raw milk and for 5 years now and since then I have had one fever and never a single upper respiratory infection. I cannot attribute that to raw milk because the science hasn't been done, and in my case there are a lot of unexplained variables that would have to be examined, but I do know thousands of people report the same sort of experience. I have to conclude from personal experience the benefits of raw milk are real.

And in comparison the factory milk you think is safe tastes like total crap. People think it is good because they don't know any better.

Citation:

For an analysis of the comparative safety of raw versus pasteurized milk see Those Pathogens, What You Should Know by Dr. Ted Beals. On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk. See our press release on these findings, Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe, and this Safety of Raw Milk Summary PowerPoint Presentation.
 
2013-09-14 11:43:56 AM  

Felgraf: Goats and cows are somewhat different creatures.


Amazing. I never knew this.

Although I am curious as to why someone would think the differences have any bearing on the safety of the milk from either animal.
 
2013-09-14 11:46:52 AM  

AntiNerd: Would it surprise you to learn that more people have gotten sick from pasteurized milk on a per serving basis than from raw milk?


I would, mainly because it isn't true.

Citation:

Here's how your "study" was done:

The key figure that permits a calculation of raw milk illnesses on a per-person basis comes from a 2007 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) FoodNet survey, which found that 3.04 percent of the population consumes raw milk, or about 9.4 million people, based on the 2010 census. This number may in fact be larger in 2011 as raw milk is growing in popularity.  For example, sales of raw milk increased 25 percent in California in 2010, while sales of pasteurized milk declined 3 percent.
 
In addition, Dr. Beals has compiled published reports of illness attributed to raw milk from 1999 to 2010.  During the eleven-year period, illnesses attributed to raw milk averaged 42 per year.


That's an incredibly shiatty way to gather data. It can't be called a useful study by any means.
 
2013-09-14 11:48:03 AM  

AntiNerd: CitationAdvertisement:


FTFY.
 
2013-09-14 11:48:11 AM  

AntiNerd: dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.

Would it surprise you to learn that more people have gotten sick from pasteurized milk on a per serving basis than from raw milk?

I used to get a cold or flu bout about 3-4 times a year and I thought that was normal. In my 50s I discovered and started drinking raw milk and for 5 years now and since then I have had one fever and never a single upper respiratory infection. I cannot attribute that to raw milk because the science hasn't been done, and in my case there are a lot of unexplained variables that would have to be examined, but I do know thousands of people report the same sort of experience. I have to conclude from personal experience the benefits of raw milk are real.

And in comparison the factory milk you think is safe tastes like total crap. People think it is good because they don't know any better.

Citation:

For an analysis of the comparative safety of raw versus pasteurized milk see Those Pathogens, What You Should Know by Dr. Ted Beals. On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk. See our press release on these findings, Government Data Proves Raw Milk Safe, and this Safety of Raw Milk Summary PowerPoint Presentation.


Seems legit.
 
2013-09-14 11:49:07 AM  

AntiNerd: Citation


I read the cited materials.  I can find no comparison that backs the claim "On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk".

Can you help me out?
 
2013-09-14 11:50:02 AM  

AntiNerd: Felgraf: Goats and cows are somewhat different creatures.

Amazing. I never knew this.

Although I am curious as to why someone would think the differences have any bearing on the safety of the milk from either animal.


Because different animals have different habits and may have different levels of cleanliness/may carry different diseases more easily?

Sort of like how chickens can kind of be walking salmonela factories? And how you need to wash your hands after touching a turtle?
 
2013-09-14 11:51:59 AM  

AntiNerd: In my 50s I discovered and started drinking raw milk and for 5 years now and since then I have had one fever and never a single upper respiratory infection. I cannot attribute that to raw milk because the science hasn't been done, and in my case there are a lot of unexplained variables that would have to be examined, but I do know thousands of people report the same sort of experience.


You claim you can't, but you sure as shiat did.


And can I just say I am floored that you provided a citation that does nothing more than tell us to go read a book.

AntiNerd: Would it surprise you to learn that more people have gotten sick from pasteurized milk on a per serving basis than from raw milk?


Perhaps I went through too fast, but at no point is this claim shown in your links.

As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers.
 
2013-09-14 11:52:16 AM  

stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.


They've been drinking raw milk in France for a long, long, time, both from cows and goats, and it doesn't seem to be causing mass disease outbreaks.  They're also big on raw milk cheeses, which are a lot more interesting to me than just raw milk.

I'd love to see the importation restrictions on raw milk cheeses be lifted, or regulations lifted to allow for domestic production.
 
2013-09-14 11:53:28 AM  
Think we got trolled or is this moron serious?
 
2013-09-14 11:55:00 AM  

Felgraf: AntiNerd: Felgraf: Goats and cows are somewhat different creatures.

Amazing. I never knew this.

Although I am curious as to why someone would think the differences have any bearing on the safety of the milk from either animal.

Because different animals have different habits and may have different levels of cleanliness/may carry different diseases more easily?

Sort of like how chickens can kind of be walking salmonela factories? And how you need to wash your hands after touching a turtle?


I only drink armadillo milk.  It tastes better, and animal differences have no effect on milk safety. Milk is a naturally healthy product that contains disease fighting components.  It is only when you heat it that it can become unsafe. Anti-Nerd taught me that!
 
2013-09-14 11:58:15 AM  

Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers


Natural News is anti-vax.

They also claim gluten causes autism and arthritis. Basically, Natural News is here to tell you what The Big Conspiracy is trying to keep hidden from you.
 
2013-09-14 12:07:28 PM  

Mikey1969: Subby, I see nothing here that has anything to download with the FEDERAL government. Are you just that excited about posting stories that you think are Anti-Obama that you don't even read them first to make sure?


My interpretation of the headline is that subby thinks Arkansans are leeches receiving federal money and here's something different  to suck on. Maybe you're the one with reading difficulty.
 
2013-09-14 12:14:14 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers

Natural News is anti-vax.

They also claim gluten causes autism and arthritis. Basically, Natural News is here to tell you what The Big Conspiracy is trying to keep hidden from you.


As someone with an autistic son I really want to cockpunch these people. There are some kids with extreme food allergies where gluten can manifest itself as autistic-like symptoms and show remarkable behavior improvement when you alter their diet. However they've managed to get this ass-backwards to claim gluten causes autism.
 
2013-09-14 12:16:46 PM  

Metalupis: dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


This

Unless it is a kid getting sick, then treat the kid and call child services on the parents

And that
 
2013-09-14 12:18:47 PM  

jjorsett: Mikey1969: Subby, I see nothing here that has anything to download with the FEDERAL government. Are you just that excited about posting stories that you think are Anti-Obama that you don't even read them first to make sure?

My interpretation of the headline is that subby thinks Arkansans are leeches receiving federal money and here's something different  to suck on. Maybe you're the one with reading difficulty.


LOL, maybe you have a point...
 
2013-09-14 12:23:55 PM  

max_pooper: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I knew a guy who had an actual gluten allergy. I recall watching him, well just hearing actually, vomit violently after eating an orzo dish that he thought was rice. This was over a decade ago so well before the anti-gluten bs started.

Glutten allergies do exist but are not as common as people who claim to have them. If glutten was bad for us surely there would be some evidence in the 10,000+ year history of human agriculture.


Gluten is fantastic. Without bread, there'd be no civilization.

/or beer
 
2013-09-14 12:30:07 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Gluten is fantastic. Without bread, there'd be no civilization.


What about rice? :)
 
2013-09-14 12:31:24 PM  

notto: AntiNerd: Citation

I read the cited materials.  I can find no comparison that backs the claim "On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk".

Can you help me out?


It wasn't hard. I'm afraid I don't have time now to JPG the powerpoint slides and upload them for view, but if you want you can see them for yourself. The ppt is 9MB but worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - -----------------

USDA/FDA STATISTICS: Based on data in a 2003 USDA/FDA report: Compared to raw milk there are 515 times more illnesses from L-mono due to deli meats and 29 times more illness from L-mono due to pasteurized milk. On a PER-SERVING BASIS, deli meats were TEN times more likely than raw milk to cause illness (Intrepretive Summary - Listeria Monocytogenes Risk Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Sept. 2003, page 17).

OUTBREAKS DUE TO PASTEURIZED MILK: Due to high-volume distribution and its comparative lack of anti-microbial components, pasteurized milk when contaminated has caused numerous widespread and serious outbreaks of illness, including a 1984-5 outbreak afflicting almost 200,000 people. In 2007, three people died in Massachusetts from illness caused by contaminated pasteurized milk (Real Milk Powerpoint, slide 30).
 
2013-09-14 12:35:26 PM  

Smackledorfer: Tyrone Slothrop: Gluten is fantastic. Without bread, there'd be no civilization.

What about rice? :)


Rice is harder to grow and grows in fewer places than wheat, due to its high water needs.
 
2013-09-14 12:36:36 PM  

AntiNerd: notto: AntiNerd: Citation

I read the cited materials.  I can find no comparison that backs the claim "On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk".

Can you help me out?

It wasn't hard. I'm afraid I don't have time now to JPG the powerpoint slides and upload them for view, but if you want you can see them for yourself. The ppt is 9MB but worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - -----------------

USDA/FDA STATISTICS: Based on data in a 2003 USDA/FDA report: Compared to raw milk there are 515 times more illnesses from L-mono due to deli meats and 29 times more illness from L-mono due to pasteurized milk. On a PER-SERVING BASIS, deli meats were TEN times more likely than raw milk to cause illness (Intrepretive Summary - Listeria Monocytogenes Risk Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Sept. 2003, page 17).

OUTBREAKS DUE TO PASTEURIZED MILK: Due to high-volume distribution and its comparative lack of anti-microbial components, pasteurized milk when contaminated has caused numerous widespread and serious outbreaks of illness, including a 1984-5 outbreak afflicting almost 200,000 people. In 2007, three people died in Massachusetts from illness caused by contaminated pasteurized milk (Real Milk Powerpoint, slide 30).


Care to link to something that doesn't have a bias?
 
2013-09-14 12:36:49 PM  
Steadfast efforts to end the senseless prohibition of raw milk sales...

And that's where to stop reading.
 
2013-09-14 12:37:58 PM  

Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers.


You sound really angry for some reason.

The source data is from the USDA and the CDC. When the data is corrected for errors and bias this is what it shows. You might choose to debate whether those edits are valid or not but there is much of it not in dispute. So far I have seen more evidence of their scientific probity than I have of yours.

As for anit-vaxxers, yes many people attracted to raw milk are anti-vaxxers. I am not one of them but in any case I am not debating the merits of their arguments here. Ad hominem and all that.
 
2013-09-14 12:39:42 PM  

AntiNerd: notto: AntiNerd: Citation

I read the cited materials.  I can find no comparison that backs the claim "On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk".

Can you help me out?

It wasn't hard. I'm afraid I don't have time now to JPG the powerpoint slides and upload them for view, but if you want you can see them for yourself. The ppt is 9MB but worth it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - -----------------

USDA/FDA STATISTICS: Based on data in a 2003 USDA/FDA report: Compared to raw milk there are 515 times more illnesses from L-mono due to deli meats and 29 times more illness from L-mono due to pasteurized milk. On a PER-SERVING BASIS, deli meats were TEN times more likely than raw milk to cause illness (Intrepretive Summary - Listeria Monocytogenes Risk Assessment, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Sept. 2003, page 17).

OUTBREAKS DUE TO PASTEURIZED MILK: Due to high-volume distribution and its comparative lack of anti-microbial components, pasteurized milk when contaminated has caused numerous widespread and serious outbreaks of illness, including a 1984-5 outbreak afflicting almost 200,000 people. In 2007, three people died in Massachusetts from illness caused by contaminated pasteurized milk (Real Milk Powerpoint, slide 30).


So basically cherry picking (for a single disease). Thanks for showing the bias of your sources (or your interpretation of them)

You should read all the way to the conclusions of the study.
"Do not drink raw (unpasteurized) milk or eat foods that contain unpasteurized milk. "
 
2013-09-14 12:42:47 PM  
I recognize the danger of drinking raw milk and I don't do it any more. I would never serve it to my child. But I do wish that pasteurized milk didn't taste like ass. In fact the taste of ass is a distinct improvement over that "ultra pasteurized" swill.
 
2013-09-14 12:44:15 PM  

RedPhoenix122:
Care to link to something that doesn't have a bias?


Can you?

The source you are complaining about cites scientific sources and specific explanations of causality. They are biased but they are careful with their arguments. They do not pretend to not being biased. They use data from the CDC, USDA (FDA), medical journals and other peer-reviewed data sources. I am not sure what your problem is with that.

Rather than just throwing mud and hoping the weak minded will go along with you, would you mind sharing what they got wrong?
 
2013-09-14 12:45:41 PM  

RedPhoenix122: On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk


By the way, this claim never appears in the sources you provide.  Notice the 'per serving basis' does not appear in the same sentence as the 'pasturized milk' claim.

Maybe try again, what study backs the claim
"On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk "
 
2013-09-14 12:47:22 PM  
Enjoy your listeria.
 
2013-09-14 12:48:20 PM  

notto: Maybe try again, what study backs the claim
"On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk "


no study, because if it had any truth, pasteurization would not be a thing.
 
2013-09-14 12:53:08 PM  

frepnog: notto: Maybe try again, what study backs the claim
"On a per-serving basis, raw milk is as safe or several times safer than pasteurized milk "

no study, because if it had any truth, pasteurization would not be a thing.


Actually, the claim is based on this and if you find raw milk on the left side and the right side of the chart, it is clear the person making such a claim can't read a simple chart.

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm 18 5292.htm

They are combining per serving statistics and per annum statistics into a lie.  Truth is not their strong suit.
 
2013-09-14 12:58:01 PM  

Smackledorfer: I only drink armadillo milk.  It tastes better, and animal differences have no effect on milk safety. Milk is a naturally healthy product that contains disease fighting components.  It is only when you heat it that it can become unsafe. Anti-Nerd taught me that!


It isn't the heat that makes it unsafe. It is the factory farm methods that make sick milk which they then make "safe" by heating it. One milk tank truck contains milk from dozens of CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) which is then sent to a creamery to be pasteurized. If you drank any of THAT milk -- which is "raw milk" -- you would be basically committing suicide.

The pasteurization process does kill pathogens. Nobody argues otherwise although it does not kill all of them. Pasteurization is essential for CAFO milk.

It also diminishes the benefits of the product in many ways. Some of these benefits were evolved specifically for the prevention of disease. Evolution did not produce mammals whose mothers assassinate their young with their milk. Courtesy the ignorant brain-dead hippies at Scientific American and The Lancet.

i807.photobucket.com
 
2013-09-14 01:06:27 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Smackledorfer: Tyrone Slothrop: Gluten is fantastic. Without bread, there'd be no civilization.

What about rice? :)

Rice is harder to grow and grows in fewer places than wheat, due to its high water needs.


Which doesn't disprove my counterpoint.  I am not disagreeing with the value of wheat.  I am saying there would still be a civilization in southern China without it.
 
2013-09-14 01:08:04 PM  

AntiNerd: It isn't the heat that makes it unsafe


Your own link mentions heat.

"
Q.  What makes real raw milk safe?
Raw milk contains many components that kill pathogens and strengthen the immune system. These include lacto-peroxidase, lacto-ferrin, anti-microbial components of blood (leukocytes, B-macrophages, neutrophils, T-lymphocytes, immunoglobulins and antibodies), special carbohydrates (polysaccharides and oligosaccharides), special fats (medium chain fatty acids, phospholipids and spingolipids), complement enzymes, lysozyme, hormones, growth factors, mucins, fibronectin, glycomacropeptide, beneficial bacteria, bifidus factor and B12-binding protein.  These components are largely inactivated by the heat of pasteurization and ultrapasteurization.  For further information, see Part I of our  "
 
2013-09-14 01:19:58 PM  

Smackledorfer: I only drink armadillo milk.  It tastes better, and animal differences have no effect on milk safety. Milk is a naturally healthy product that contains disease fighting components.  It is only when you heat it that it can become unsafe. Anti-Nerd taught me that!


Armadillo? Surely you jest!

Raw crocodile milk is the way to go.
 
2013-09-14 01:29:06 PM  

AntiNerd: You sound really angry for some reason.


While I'm not foaming at the mouth, I fail to see why people shouldn't mock those who would throw science out the window for woowoo bullshiat and subject their children to it.  

You made a claim, that on a per serving basis raw milk resulted in less illness than pasteurized.  You then linked to a dairy advertisement page that said nothing of the sort.

  

AntiNerd: As for anit-vaxxers, yes many people attracted to raw milk are anti-vaxxers. I am not one of them but in any case I am not debating the merits of their arguments here. Ad hominem and all that.


It isn't ad hominem. This is an ad hominem, and you can quote me on it: you are being an ignorant dumbass and deserving to be called out as such.

The anti-vaxxer point is that you cannot take a group that refuses modern medical treatment and then compare it to a group who uses it, and then finish with 'TADA, the group who never goes to the hospital or doctors for treatment isn't affected by known illnesses' when all you really have is a smaller reporting rate. Reporting rates are an important part of any comparison of this nature.  There is a common thread in the "science" people like you push: they start with an agenda and ignore any statistics and actual science to the contrary, then cherry-pick unlike things to support a false claim.

This is true of the anti-vaxxers, the anti-evolutionists, the people who wet themselves over GMO* foods, the anti-glutins, the climate deniers, and you raw milk weirdos.  Every one of you has a persecution complex that you use to claim the rest of the world is blind to your special conspiracy claim.  More often than not, a simple application of Occam's razor shows that there would be very little reason for a conspiracy against your chosen anti-science claim, and often the real people to gain are those who are trying to sucker you into believing whichever silly thing you focus on.

It isn't a doctoral conspiracy to laugh at acupuncture, it is the acupuncturist who gains by robbing you for sticking in needles.
It isn't those disgusting solar power companies with billions to control the scientific consensus, it is the energy companies.
It isn't a grand atheist biology cabal keeping your creationism out of classrooms, it is a minority of religious leaders who make millions off of keeping a population submitting and ignorant.

It isn't the FDA being big government meanies controlled by big dairy (who could easily skip the pasteurization process if they saw value in that product) but rather a bunch of nutters who want to sell you marked up bullshiat and have tricked you into believing it is something special (as per your comment in the thread about how healthy you and many others got when you switched to the good stuff).

If it was just about moron being sold a tiger-repelling stone I wouldn't care, but these morons would send their kid into the jungle with one, and even if I didn't have compassion for the kids dragged into that ignorant mess I would still have to pay taxes to clean up the damage the tiger causes.  Hell, I even feel bad for the moron.  Someone with a 70 IQ deserves to be protected from his own stupidity as much as the legally retarded person with a 65.

*don't confuse my dislike of irrational fear of genetic modification of crops with a support of the business practices of Monsanto.
 
2013-09-14 01:35:44 PM  
 
2013-09-14 01:39:04 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Smackledorfer: I only drink armadillo milk.  It tastes better, and animal differences have no effect on milk safety. Milk is a naturally healthy product that contains disease fighting components.  It is only when you heat it that it can become unsafe. Anti-Nerd taught me that!

Armadillo? Surely you jest!

Raw crocodile milk is the way to go.


Oh, that is good too, for sure.

I get my daily immune boost from crocodile eggs in my breakfast.  Sure they cost far more than a chicken egg, and come with a significant amount of diarrhea (which is just your body shedding toxins), but they are worth it.  They wouldn't cost nearly so much if I didn't have to use illegal black channel crocodile farm sources because the evil federal government won't let them operate in my state without following regulations like adequate fencing and occasionally cleaning the shiat out of the croc pits. That shiat is natural and it is a crocodile's natural state to wallow in said feces.  It contains many components that kill pathogens and strengthen the immune system. Many believe eating crocodile eggs can cure, or at least limit the spread of, HIV, and it is the medical lobby that holds us back from progress in this area.  Australians have known about this one weird trick for years.

In my 50s I discovered and started eating crocodile eggs and for 5 years now and since then I haven't had aids and never a single upper respiratory infection. I cannot attribute that to croc eggs because the science hasn't been done, and in my case there are a lot of unexplained variables that would have to be examined, but I do know thousands of people report the same sort of experience. I have to conclude from personal experience the benefits of croc eggs are real.

The farm I get them from, which is as I said a black market operation, doesn't have a website, but if it did I would link to it for all of you so that the truth could come out.  Ask around in your neighborhood, you probably have an underground croc farm to source eggs from too.
 
2013-09-14 01:40:03 PM  

Smackledorfer: It isn't a doctoral conspiracy to laugh at acupuncture, it is the acupuncturist who gains by robbing you for sticking in needles.
It isn't those disgusting solar power companies with billions to control the scientific consensus, it is the energy companies.
It isn't a grand atheist biology cabal keeping your creationism out of classrooms, it is a minority of religious leaders who make millions off of keeping a population submitting and ignorant.


i like you.  you seem smart.
 
2013-09-14 01:45:41 PM  

frepnog: you seem smart.


I put on a good front :)
 
2013-09-14 01:49:47 PM  

Ikam: qorkfiend: What the fark is a naturopath?

From Wiki -   Naturopathy, ornaturopathic medicine, is a form of based on a belief in, which posits that a special energy called vital energy or vital force guides bodily processes such as, reproduction, growth, and adaptation. Naturopathy favors a approach with non-invasive treatment and generally avoids the use of and. Among naturopaths, complete rejection of biomedicine and modern science is common.

In other words, someone who believes in magic.


And apparently doesn't believe in grammar.
 
2013-09-14 01:54:17 PM  

qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?


naturalist + psychopath = naturopath
 
2013-09-14 02:13:22 PM  
As a past consumer of raw milk I would like to throw my opinion into this debate.

First some background information.  I come from a third world country, Romania to be exact. I lived in a small town and barter was very common, we got meat, milk and wheat in this way.  Now I swear by raw milk, I think its delicious, I think the flavor is richer than any store brand milk here but there are very specific reasons for that.  I can also tolerate raw milk better and there is a scientific reason for that too.  Personally I think that if people are responsible enough, they should have access to raw milk.  Now with that said, Arkansas opening up the floodgates like this is going to lead to one hell of a rush on emergency care in the first few years and this was a mistake.

My Grandparents always handled the milk processing, usually when it was going on, I was barred from the kitchen.  I did take note of the process and I will state that my grandparents were always careful to fully process the milk before anyone got to it.  No matter how many times or how often I pleaded, I was never allowed to drink the raw batch.

Also from a chemical and biological perspective, anyone drinking pure raw milk more than once a week is risking serious levels of obesity.

/On a side note, I've also had to take the TB Antibiotics for 8 months, destroyed 6% of my liver at the time.
 
2013-09-14 02:17:07 PM  

AntiNerd: RedPhoenix122:
Care to link to something that doesn't have a bias?

Can you?

The source you are complaining about cites scientific sources and specific explanations of causality. They are biased but they are careful with their arguments. They do not pretend to not being biased. They use data from the CDC, USDA (FDA), medical journals and other peer-reviewed data sources. I am not sure what your problem is with that.

Rather than just throwing mud and hoping the weak minded will go along with you, would you mind sharing what they got wrong?


Maybe the "data from the CDC" part.

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers .h tml
http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html
 
2013-09-14 02:19:58 PM  

Citris: /On a side note, I've also had to take the TB Antibiotics for 8 months, destroyed 6% of my liver at the time.


I'd like to criticize your swearing by raw milk despite getting TB from it, but I make the choice to take the health risk of undercooked beef every time I grill a burger or steak, so fair enough :)

I'm not against access, I just think the folks like anti-intelligence in this thread are ridiculous with their claims that it is healthier.

I don't pretend my rare hamburger is health. I simply claim it is tasty as hell and worth it.
 
2013-09-14 02:25:10 PM  

AntiNerd: Smackledorfer: As for reported illness comparisons, I'll pass on assuming the raw milk weirdos do not also overlap their distrust of medical science by skipping the doctor and treating themselves all sorts of ridiculous crap.  You guys sound like anti-vaxxers.

You sound really angry for some reason.


The "you sound angry" thing made me laugh, because conspiracy nutters in general (of which the raw-milk and anti-vaccine types are a subset) are usually really pissed off at all of the people who just "don't get it". The last one I talked to  - at the time she was berating me for taking the blood pressure medication my doctor had prescribed - became furious when I didn't immediately agree to stop taking it. She'd studied to be a "nutritionist" so she had to know better than my doctor, who was just a pawn of the pharmaceutical companies.

Most of us just get annoyed when we're lectured at by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about. We only get actually angry when their foolishness causes children to be unnecessarily exposed to risks like polio.
 
2013-09-14 02:26:57 PM  

Smackledorfer: Citris: /On a side note, I've also had to take the TB Antibiotics for 8 months, destroyed 6% of my liver at the time.

I'd like to criticize your swearing by raw milk despite getting TB from it, but I make the choice to take the health risk of undercooked beef every time I grill a burger or steak, so fair enough :)

I'm not against access, I just think the folks like anti-intelligence in this thread are ridiculous with their claims that it is healthier.

I don't pretend my rare hamburger is health. I simply claim it is tasty as hell and worth it.


I only swear to its taste, I drink UHT milk now mostly because of its similar taste and my stomach's tolerance towards the heat broken lactose.  And I didn't have the TB scare from the raw milk, that was from something else, I just had the treatment and can attest that it is no fun, so its mostly a warning to raw milk drinkers to think twice before risking it.

Raw milk is fine if you process it properly.  Is it worth the risk?  Personally I have to say no, There is very little gain save for some flavor and some minor nutrients that can be had elsewhere.  Pure raw milk is not for adults, as adults we can hardly process half of what is in raw milk, the other half goes strait to reserves or flushed out of our systems.

I look at milk the same way you look at your hamburger.  I would prefer a properly processed raw milk, but a uht version will do in a pinch or in a real bind I can tolerate regular milk with the help of lactaid.
 
2013-09-14 02:30:03 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.

They've been drinking raw milk in France for a long, long, time, both from cows and goats, and it doesn't seem to be causing mass disease outbreaks.  They're also big on raw milk cheeses, which are a lot more interesting to me than just raw milk.

I'd love to see the importation restrictions on raw milk cheeses be lifted, or regulations lifted to allow for domestic production.


That would be fascinating, provided we made sure the health standards were strict enough.

/If you want raw milk, knock yourself out, but try to be as safe as possible.
 
2013-09-14 02:35:15 PM  
RedPhoenix122:
Rather than just throwing mud and hoping the weak minded will go along with you, would you mind sharing what they got wrong?

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/RiskSafetyAssessment/ucm 18 5292.htm

Listeria monocytogenes Risk Assessment: Executive SummaryFDA/Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
USDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service
September 2003



Predicted Median Cases of Listeriosis for 23 Food Categories
Per Serving Basis

Unpasteurized  Fluid Milk
7.1x10-9

Pasteurized  Fluid Milk
1.0x10-9
 
2013-09-14 02:37:02 PM  

notto: RedPhoenix122:


That was for AntiNerd.  Not sure why it keeps doing that.
 
2013-09-14 03:18:03 PM  

qorkfiend: Albino Squid: Blew up at my sister because she had given her three-year-old daughter raw goat's milk. Got a headful of hurr durr natural in response. Told her that it doesn't get much more natural than e.coli. No response.

She recently declared that she'd read that baking soda cures cancer and big pharma is suppressing that knowledge. She's a lost cause, but I despair of the fact that her kid will be subjected to this nonsense.

What makes people go this crazy?


images.catholic.org
 
2013-09-14 03:24:03 PM  
As someone who enjoys steaks well done, eggs hard cooked, oysters boiled to the consistency of a latex condom, and sushi of the "pork B-B-Q" variety, I cannot approve of consuming uncooked animal products.
 
2013-09-14 03:28:11 PM  
Natural News, the Infowars of health sites.

Sheesh.
 
2013-09-14 03:36:43 PM  

PsiChick: TuteTibiImperes: stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.

They've been drinking raw milk in France for a long, long, time, both from cows and goats, and it doesn't seem to be causing mass disease outbreaks.  They're also big on raw milk cheeses, which are a lot more interesting to me than just raw milk.

I'd love to see the importation restrictions on raw milk cheeses be lifted, or regulations lifted to allow for domestic production.

That would be fascinating, provided we made sure the health standards were strict enough.

/If you want raw milk, knock yourself out, but try to be as safe as possible.


I'd be dubious of raw milk from a typical assembly line factory farm, but something from a artisinal dairy where they take the time to make sure the animals are healthy and clean and that the equipment is properly sterilized, I'd be down for that.

Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.
 
2013-09-14 03:38:31 PM  

Kittypie070: Natural News, the Infowars of health sites.

Sheesh.


this
 
2013-09-14 03:48:08 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: PsiChick: TuteTibiImperes: stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.

They've been drinking raw milk in France for a long, long, time, both from cows and goats, and it doesn't seem to be causing mass disease outbreaks.  They're also big on raw milk cheeses, which are a lot more interesting to me than just raw milk.

I'd love to see the importation restrictions on raw milk cheeses be lifted, or regulations lifted to allow for domestic production.

That would be fascinating, provided we made sure the health standards were strict enough.

/If you want raw milk, knock yourself out, but try to be as safe as possible.

I'd be dubious of raw milk from a typical assembly line factory farm, but something from a artisinal dairy where they take the time to make sure the animals are healthy and clean and that the equipment is properly sterilized, I'd be down for that.

Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.


You do know how vinegar is made right?
 
2013-09-14 03:48:25 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: PsiChick: TuteTibiImperes: stuhayes2010: I grew up drinking raw milk straight from our goats. I never got sick or died from it.

They've been drinking raw milk in France for a long, long, time, both from cows and goats, and it doesn't seem to be causing mass disease outbreaks.  They're also big on raw milk cheeses, which are a lot more interesting to me than just raw milk.

I'd love to see the importation restrictions on raw milk cheeses be lifted, or regulations lifted to allow for domestic production.

That would be fascinating, provided we made sure the health standards were strict enough.

/If you want raw milk, knock yourself out, but try to be as safe as possible.

I'd be dubious of raw milk from a typical assembly line factory farm, but something from a artisinal dairy where they take the time to make sure the animals are healthy and clean and that the equipment is properly sterilized, I'd be down for that.

Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.


I disagree with you about sourdough, but yep, basically this.
 
2013-09-14 04:12:09 PM  
TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?
 
2013-09-14 04:19:47 PM  

notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?


OK, 'wild' instead of natural.
 
2013-09-14 04:47:52 PM  

super_grass: As someone who enjoys steaks well done, eggs hard cooked, oysters boiled to the consistency of a latex condom, and sushi of the "pork B-B-Q" variety, I cannot approve of consuming uncooked animal products.


I'm never coming to your house for dinner
 
2013-09-14 05:06:23 PM  
Ah, I love raw milk threads.  Brings out a nice mix of FREEEDOOMMM food Libertarians and hipsters.
 
2013-09-14 05:48:06 PM  

dahmers love zombie: I have absolutely no problem with this.  Provided that everybody drinking the raw milk has full insurance coverage, of course.  Otherwise, they should change the law to state that the EMTALA regs don't count for anyone who drinks raw milk and shows up uninsured at a healthcare facility suffering from Campylobacter, e Coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Yersinia, Norovirus, Brucella, or Listeria.  Free treatment should be a barf bag and a porta-potti, and an educational flyer on why raw milk actually isn't the miracle drug that kook woo-science sites like Natural News make it out to be.


So basically the warning message on every white castle bag
 
2013-09-14 06:02:57 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.


Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.
 
2013-09-14 06:21:27 PM  

paygun: These people selling raw milk should be put in prison.  Also, we should legalize drugs.


I say, it should be one or the other.

Barring marijuana, which barely qualifies under the term "theraputic drug" and is milder than alcohol. Assume I'm not talking about that.

If raw milk is legal, heroin and meth should be legal. There is no reason to outlaw any of them except to protect public health. Raw milk will result in more preventable, communicable diseases ravaging otherwise healthy populations - this is why we pasteurize milk. Meth and Heroin, at least, don't create communicable disease risks, just risks for the users. Of course, there is the negligible population infected with discarded used needles, but that's like single-digit worldwide per year at best.

I challenge anyone to give me an argument as to why raw milk should be legal but not meth.
 
2013-09-14 06:24:03 PM  

qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?


Like a psychopath, except they display an overwhelming preference for killing children by making them take unnecessary health risks.
 
2013-09-14 06:25:43 PM  

max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.


I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.
 
2013-09-14 06:26:42 PM  

max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.


Anyone who thinks "natural" or "wild" means the same as "healthy" should eat a fistful of hemlock.
 
2013-09-14 06:27:56 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.


Rolling the dice when it comes to which group of billions of microorganisms ferment your beer is profoundly stupid.
 
2013-09-14 06:30:53 PM  

LavenderWolf: qorkfiend: buzzcut73: Lenny_da_Hog: notto: "Natural News" would praise the government or state outlawing GMO.  That is one of the many hypocrisies and reasoning fallacies they exhibit in their anti-scientific fanaticism.

I ran into a formerly bright 20-year-old girl a couple of weeks ago at a little tea shop in my neighborhood, ranting about gluten. I hadn't seen her in a year or so, and she'd fallen in with the anti-science crowd through her church in that year.

She explained that gluten is bad for everyone, because it's genetically modified gluten! Gluten causes autism and prevents you from absorbing natural nutrients!

I pointed out that there is no current crop of genetically modified wheat on the market, that wheat was one of the first agricultural products, and that very few people have any problem ingesting gluten. She picked up her iPad and went to Natural News to bolster her points.

I chortled at Natural News. She said, "YOU'D BETTER WATCH IT! I'm studying to be a Naturopath!"

I told her she'd better get used to the ridicule.

I had somebody in my General Chem II class last year that was studying to be a Naturopath. After seeing her understanding of even basic concepts, I'm even more convinced that science isn't their strong point.

What the fark is a naturopath?

Like a psychopath, except they display an overwhelming preference for killing children by making them take unnecessary health risks.



What about the third approach of setting up licensed centers to dispense to a very limited number of people who won't be dissuaded from getting it any ways, this way they can be delivered in a safe manner that will result in fewer emergencies to spend money and time on?
 
2013-09-14 06:31:47 PM  
LavenderWolf

Bah, I meant to quote your previous post.
 
2013-09-14 06:36:08 PM  
Citris:
What about the third approach of setting up licensed centers to dispense to a very limited number of people who won't be dissuaded from getting it any ways, this way they can be delivered in a safe manner that will result in fewer emergencies to spend money and time on?

That's not really a third option, that's exactly what I mean. Legalization of either substance can't really be done by just allowing people to sell drugs/raw milk to whomever they want with no oversight. Regular pasteurized milk can't even be sold that way - there are health inspectors, etc.
 
2013-09-14 06:41:00 PM  
LavenderWolf:
That's not really a third option, that's exactly what I mean. Legalization of either substance can't really be done by just allowing people to sell drugs/raw milk to whomever they want with no oversight. Regular pasteurized milk can't even be sold that way - there are health inspectors, etc.

Then we are on the same page then.  But people will try the easy way and just openly legalize because they are either lazy or naive or ignorant. etc.
 
2013-09-14 06:44:50 PM  

LavenderWolf: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.

Rolling the dice when it comes to which group of billions of microorganisms ferment your beer is profoundly stupid.


Not really, the alcohol content will kill them for the most part before you drink it, and the really bad ones never make it to bottle.
 
2013-09-14 06:47:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: LavenderWolf: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.

Rolling the dice when it comes to which group of billions of microorganisms ferment your beer is profoundly stupid.

Not really, the alcohol content will kill them for the most part before you drink it, and the really bad ones never make it to bottle.


Well, I'll bow to someone who appears to have superior beer knowledge; I am not a beer guy.
 
2013-09-14 06:49:05 PM  

Citris: LavenderWolf:
That's not really a third option, that's exactly what I mean. Legalization of either substance can't really be done by just allowing people to sell drugs/raw milk to whomever they want with no oversight. Regular pasteurized milk can't even be sold that way - there are health inspectors, etc.

Then we are on the same page then.  But people will try the easy way and just openly legalize because they are either lazy or naive or ignorant. etc.


Yep. That's exactly why the smarter dealers in California did everything they could to get their customers to vote against pot legalization. Up to and including giving away free weed for votes against legalization.
 
2013-09-14 07:09:41 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.


You show incredible ignorance of beer and the process for making it. There are only a small handful of breweries that use "wild yeast" spontaneous fermentation.

You could also wonder into the forest and just eat anything you see. It could be delicious arugula or just a bitter weed that looks the same. Do you make your salads with mystery greens or do buy them grown agricultural professionals who know exactly what plant they are producing?
 
2013-09-14 07:41:42 PM  

LavenderWolf: Citris: LavenderWolf:
That's not really a third option, that's exactly what I mean. Legalization of either substance can't really be done by just allowing people to sell drugs/raw milk to whomever they want with no oversight. Regular pasteurized milk can't even be sold that way - there are health inspectors, etc.

Then we are on the same page then.  But people will try the easy way and just openly legalize because they are either lazy or naive or ignorant. etc.

Yep. That's exactly why the smarter dealers in California did everything they could to get their customers to vote against pot legalization. Up to and including giving away free weed for votes against legalization.


Not surprising, I can only loosely predict what would happen here in NY if it ever went full legal and it borders on mild pandemonium.
 
2013-09-14 07:45:12 PM  

max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.

You show incredible ignorance of beer and the process for making it. There are only a small handful of breweries that use "wild yeast" spontaneous fermentation.


Spontaneous wild yest fermentation is one of the defining characteristics of the Lambic style, if it doesn't use wild yeast, it isn't a lambic.
 
2013-09-14 07:54:15 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.

You show incredible ignorance of beer and the process for making it. There are only a small handful of breweries that use "wild yeast" spontaneous fermentation.

Spontaneous wild yest fermentation is one of the defining characteristics of the Lambic style, if it doesn't use wild yeast, it isn't a lambic.


True of traditional lambics which all Belgium lambics are. I should have said "lambic style" because Sam Adams makes a beer they call "lambic" that is not spontaneously fermented and therefor not a traditional lambic.

/lambic
 
2013-09-14 08:01:47 PM  
It seems we can all agree that weed infused naturally fermented raw milk is the way to go.
 
2013-09-14 08:04:07 PM  

max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: max_pooper: TuteTibiImperes: notto: TuteTibiImperes:
Food products that are made with natural microorganisms are oftentimes tastier - sourdough vs regular white bread, Lambic or Gueuze beer vs brews made with commericial yeast, fermented sauerkraut vs the stuff made mostly with vinegar, etc.

How is commercial yeast not a 'natural microrganism'?

OK, 'wild' instead of natural.

Why is "wild" better? All commercial yeasts were wild at one point. Brewers isolate yeast strains to better control the flavored imparted by the yeast.

When relying on "wild" yeast, many more organisms can get in the beer than are desired. The tart flavor imparted by bacterial infection in lambics are often complimented with the sweetness of fruit. A blonde ale left to spontaneous ferment would be undrinkable.

I enjoy the sour tart flavors of lambics, even those that don't contain fruit to sweeten them.  Of course, it's a niche style, and the far more predictable beers brewed with carefully controlled commercial yeasts are certainly more popular.  More popular doesn't mean more interesting, or even better, however.  It's like stopping for dinner on a road trip - do you go with the Cracker Barrel right at the exit that's a known quantity, or take a side road a bit and find a local joint that might be a lot better, at the risk of going somewhere that might end up being a lot worse.  I like to roll the dice in those situations.

You show incredible ignorance of beer and the process for making it. There are only a small handful of breweries that use "wild yeast" spontaneous fermentation.

Spontaneous wild yest fermentation is one of the defining characteristics of the Lambic style, if it doesn't use wild yeast, it isn't a lambic.

True of traditional lambics which all Belgium lambics are. I should have said "lambic style" because Sam Adams makes a beer they call "lambic" that is not spontaneously fermented and therefor not a traditional lambic.

/la ...


Ah, fair enough, I didn't realize Sam Adams was trying to pass off a false lambic.  I usually stick to Lindemans because that's what I can find locally.  Their Cuvee Rene is excellent, though the fruit sweetened ones are nice for a chance of pace now and again as well.
 
2013-09-14 08:36:03 PM  

Citris: LavenderWolf: Citris: LavenderWolf:
That's not really a third option, that's exactly what I mean. Legalization of either substance can't really be done by just allowing people to sell drugs/raw milk to whomever they want with no oversight. Regular pasteurized milk can't even be sold that way - there are health inspectors, etc.

Then we are on the same page then.  But people will try the easy way and just openly legalize because they are either lazy or naive or ignorant. etc.

Yep. That's exactly why the smarter dealers in California did everything they could to get their customers to vote against pot legalization. Up to and including giving away free weed for votes against legalization.

Not surprising, I can only loosely predict what would happen here in NY if it ever went full legal and it borders on mild pandemonium.


If done right, it allows those experienced growers to go legitimate, while eliminating any unrelated criminal enterprise.

If done wrong, it just lets anyone grow and sell whatever weed they want, safe or not.
 
2013-09-14 10:10:48 PM  

qorkfiend: What the fark is a naturopath?


Short answer: a quack.
 
2013-09-14 10:41:40 PM  

AntiNerd: It is the factory farm methods that make sick milk which they then make "safe" by heating it.


...which is a singularly asinine statement to make, as we've been pasteurizing milk for decades (if not close to a century) before factory-farming became a thing.
 
2013-09-15 12:59:24 AM  
Sick milk?
 
2013-09-15 01:09:19 AM  
I thought for sure this headline would be about breast-feeding.  d'oh
 
2013-09-15 08:51:58 AM  
Big Business sucks on one tit while squeezing the other.  but its not Socialism.
 
2013-09-15 01:52:22 PM  

max_pooper: I would to be able to buy raw milk. I would make some kick ass homemade cheese.


I live in a state where raw milk is available from the grocery, and I dabble in cheese making. Unfortunately, around here raw milk is way too expensive and any cheese I made with it would wind up being very expensive. It would be much more expensive than purchasing a similar cheese.
 
2013-09-15 03:25:30 PM  
If any person who chooses this product gets sick or dies from it, there should be no lawsuits, no medical treatment other than an aspirin, and no sympathy. Let them suffer and perish, eliminating themselves from the gene pool as a warning to others that "because it tastes better" (debatable, but 'meh') is not a good reason to do something this stupid.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done.
 
2013-09-15 05:36:48 PM  

rewind2846: If any person who chooses this product gets sick or dies from it, there should be no lawsuits, no medical treatment other than an aspirin, and no sympathy. Let them suffer and perish, eliminating themselves from the gene pool as a warning to others that "because it tastes better" (debatable, but 'meh') is not a good reason to do something this stupid.

Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done.


Lead Acetate tastes pretty sweet. Ethylene glycol too. Both will kill you.
 
2013-09-15 06:17:41 PM  

LavenderWolf: Lead Acetate tastes pretty sweet. Ethylene glycol too. Both will kill you.


And which of these has farkall to do with the easy, simple and time tested method of preventing disease by pasteurization of milk and other products?

If you want to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, the EMTs shouldn't even come to scoop you up. Let your family get out there with shovels, big pieces of cardboard and buckets. Let's not even stop or divert traffic... perhaps weed a few more of your kin out of the pool.
If you want to jump off a cliff, the only thing local sheriffs should do is cordon off the area so that the animals can eat your carcass in peace.
If you want to drink unpasteurized milk, when you show up at the ER they should just put you on a bench outside over a drain so that you don't sh*t all over their waiting room floor as your guts come out at both ends before you die.

Actions have consequences, and if you choose not to take advantage of easily preventable damage to life, limb and health, then ya get what's coming to ya.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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