Things like this make me angry. I buy raw milk and know a lot of people that also do. We know about the potential risks and willingly choose to purchase the milk. I also recall reading that pastuerized milk was more likely to make you sick due to there being nothing in there to fight contamination. And if the cows are on their natural grass fed diet they won't harbor E. coli. The risk of salmonella is minimal unless cows and chickens share pasture.

I think the government is really overstepping in this situation!

@BunnyGirl: "I think the government is really overstepping in this situation!"

When the government does it, that means it is not overstepping.

It's for our own good, you know.

Uh-oh. They'll be going after breast milk next!

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/video-of-raw-milk-buyers-in-georgia-forced-to-destroy-their-milk-is-this-the-role-of-government-in-america/

As far as I can tell, nobody had a gun to these people's heads or threatened them in any way. Someone gave them orders, and they obeyed. If the day ever comes I am given such an order, I will not obey. I will state that I am taking my lawfully owned property, and I am leaving. And I will not allow anyone to punish me, because I will be doing nothing wrong.

"I buy raw milk and know a lot of people that also do. We know about the potential risks and willingly choose to purchase the milk. I also recall reading that pastuerized milk was more likely to make you sick due to there being nothing in there to fight contamination. And if the cows are on their natural grass fed diet they won't harbor E. coli. The risk of salmonella is minimal unless cows and chickens share pasture."

Umm, your post suggests that you don't know the risks.

There isn't anything in raw milk to "fight contamination", whatever that is, and E. coli is found nearly everywhere.

The proof of performance of the dairy farmer in your case is your continued good results. If that substance was shipped as regular milk is, with a non-guaranteed refrigeration profile, you'd never be able to trust it. You can't ship raw milk like pasteurized stuff.

You demanded comsumer protection, and you got it. Just like hundreds of other situations, you didn't get the exception made that would let this be avoided.

The bottom line is that pasteurization works.

-----

Marijuana fans, take note. Unless you insist that "legal" marijuana is wholly local, where the buyer MUST PERSONALLY buy from the producer where the plants are grown, you will have the same problem with product regulation. As soon as you involve shipping and handling by 3rd parties, you'll invoke all sorts of trade restrictions.

I personally won't drink raw milk. However, the existence of sting operations like this is downright pathological. It indicates a serious organizational psychological breakdown at the FDA. If a for-profit private organization were this dysfunctional, it would be out of business in months. I'm starting to think the people need some Constitutional means of exerting direct control of Federal agencies. Like, say, a recall mechanism for agency heads: if 3/4 of state legislatures vote to recall an agency head, the President must dismiss that person and nominate a replacement.

My family doctor tells me I should not eat raw eggs - but I do. I would drink raw milk if I could get it locally. It is too expensive to ship frozen milk to Minnesota.

My early years were free from all these regulations. Milk was good (especially the cream on the top of the bottle). Summer vacations to Minnesota from L.A. as a kid meant straight from the cow milk - my brother and I would fight the barn cats for the paper filters.

FDA would be on my list of federal agencies that just needs to go away. If someone sells you a product that harms you, don't you legally have the option of a lawsuit. Therefore, aren't most businesses going to do there best to avoid a lawsuit? I've always been confused as to why we need an FDA, and/or an FDA that's in everyone's business.

I hope the judge sentences them to a stiff shunning.

I'm not usually on the opposite side of an issue I read here. Did I miss a step in the analysis of this situation where Rainbow Acres Farm are the good guys?

The FDA does have jurisdiction. Unpasteurized milk is riskier than pasteurized milk. Rainbow Acres Farm is knowingly its customers in danger in defiance of the law.

What's there to be upset about? The FDA is doing its job, admirably.

Rainbow Acres Farm is probably a well run dairy farm. Their customers are freely purchasing milk from them. If their product was deadly you would hear about that, not from the feds, but the health industry. If there was a problem with their milk, customers would get sick, word would get out (fast), they would lose customers and then go out of business. Markets work that way.

I do not want the feds doing a sting on just any muslim. I want they doing a sting on the muslim that is behaving in a way in preparation to harm people.

The odds of getting sick from a local dairy that has good industry standards is not a threat to the public as a whole. The individual should be free to decide if he wants the raw mild or not.

Eric V, let me know what you eat. I'm sure I can find things in your fridge that have evidence of harm. Cold cuts? Did you know they are riskier than normal cooked meat? Ugh, look at that ground meat, that's in the trash, since it's also way risker than solid cooked cuts. Let me also install a camera in your kitchen to make sure you are cooking your meat to the USDA-recommended temperature. Did you know that anything below that is more unsafe? Also, is that saturated fat in that meat? There is tons of evidence that is unsafe. Maybe let me trim it off for you and throw it away.

Did you know that raw milk has killed more people than alcohol, tobacco and firearms?

The issue really isn't about whether raw milk is safe or not. The issue is about whether any adult in the USA should have the right to weigh the risks on their own and DECIDE whether or not to take them. As was previously mentioned, next thing we know, the FDA is going to be invading our kitchen to make sure we don't eat the (raw) cookie dough.

There is a local dairy here in Texas that sells raw milk and has done so successfully for many years. Unfortunately, several people were recently sickened by salmonella (if local news reports can be trusted, and I am not sure they can) rather than brucellosis or other expected raw-milk risk. I hate it because it makes it more likely that the FDA and other regulatory nannies will step in and disallow these sales, even though it's not perfectly clear why the milk was bad.

Though I personally don't drink milk as a rule, I have a few times made the choice to drink raw milk. But it was my choice, made knowingly, and I would have suffered the consequences myself if there had been anything wrong with it.

Government agencies: stay out of our decisions!

Wow, this is just plain stupid.

I have just demonstrated above, and gharkness has shown again, that at least one of you does not have the means to determine if what you eat is harmful. The "market force" cited above will NOT remove a parasite from your system or save a family member.

Two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot justify scrapping consumer protections because of this event.

You cannot tell if the foods you buy are safe. That is why USDA and the FDA are present: to publish rules that universally produce safe foods, and to let the food production systems know there are inescapable consequences for shipping unsafe foods.

How many of you lost a dog to the Chinese pet food a couple of years ago? There you go. You sure called that one, didn't you?

Radwaste, nothing is safe. There is no security this side of the grave. You're either ignorant, or being deliberately obtuse. But if you really want to play the utilitarian game, leafy greens -- under your much-vaunted "consumer protection" -- have been the greatest offenders for reported food-related illnesses in recent years.

Who said market forces will remove a parasite from your system?

Just as technology makes nuclear energy use safer, technology has make the dairy industry safer. We do know that filthy dairy farms produced bad milk. We do know that well run dairy farms produce very little "risk."

Japan's government controls just proved that nuclear energy is not safe and is dangerous to living things; therefore, it should be stopped. That is what I hear you saying Rad.

You cannot tell if the foods you buy are safe. That is why USDA and the FDA are present: to publish rules that universally produce safe foods, and to let the food production systems know there are inescapable consequences for shipping unsafe foods. -- Radwaste at April 30, 2011 12:40 PM

Do you happen to remember that HCFS was/is contaminated with mercury for years? But the FDA goes after a smaller farm that is providing a local product.

Rad,
P.S. Didn't some dudes die in China for poisoning dog and cat food. Market forces can be tough.

Please take note of this: the only reason that the FDA is involved, is because the farm is in one state and the customer in another.

According to the WSJ article about this case: "Although the FDA bans interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption, its sale is legal in 28 states"

In other words, this is normally a state issue. The FDA can only stick its nose in, in the reasonably unusual case of cross-border sales. In fact, either of the two states involved could intervene, but apparently saw no reason to do so.

Since this is an area where the states have effective regulations, perhaps the FDA has better things it could be doing.

Radwaste, we aren't talking about food grown in China, processed in California and trucked to a grocery store in Iowa. We are talking about consumers going to a farm and buying directly from a farmer. They know exactly who to sue if they get sick.

BTW here are the perfectly legal foods that kill/maim the most people http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2011/04/28/the-10-pathogen-food-combinations-that-most-hurt-public-health/

"Campylobacter in poultry: $1.3 billion annually, 9,500 lost quality adjusted life years (QALYs)"

So when is the FDA going to start holding poultry plants accountable? Never, since they are owned by big powerful companies who are able to convince the FDA that such pathogens are normal ingredients of the food.

Radwaste: I do have - and use - the knowledge of how to make my food safe....at least, as safe as it can be. There's my pressure canner, with which I preserve low-acid foods for just the correct amount of time to avoid botulinum toxin, for example, and if I happen to buy raw milk and I want to - I know how - and why - to pasteurize it. When making yogurt, I DO pasteurize it.

But the choice and the consequences are mine. Not the FDA's. As was previously stated, if they are so good at protecting the public interest, why all the salmonella in spinach and raw eggs, listeria in cold meats and the horrible consequences of eating peanut butter last year?

Life IS dangerous. The gub'mint really can't protect us. That is OUR job.

@radwaste

Raw milk contains "good" bacteria as well as potentially bacteria that will make you sick. However, the presence of the beneficial bacteria strains can often control the growth of the infectious bacteria. Also, E. coli O157 is the infectious form of it and cows fed a diet of grass, hay, pasture do not harbor it in their system anywhere as their gut acidity is at the proper levels and gut bacteria is optimally balanced. Cows fed a diet of grains do contain infectious E. coli because it drastically alters acidity and allows overgrowth of infectious bacteria that could otherwise not live in their gut.

I buy my raw milk from a local farm and they test at each milking for contamination (how salmonella gets into milk). I do have confidence in my milk source and do agree that widescale commercial production and distribution of raw milk is not likely to be safe.

Wow.

You guys have severe problems reading.

1) The FDA and USDA establish protective measures, ranging from guidelines to regulations, to protect you. At no time have I said that this is perfect. What I have said is that those agencies present the carrot and stick. They tell you what to do, and they tell you what will happen to you if you do not do what they say and harm someone.

2) It is I who pointed out that a personal transaction with a producer is desirable - and that still, few people - I venture to say, most of them here - have the ability to tell if a food sold in a store is safe. This is actually one of the BEST examples of a Federal agency safeguarding the health of the people; when interstate trade is involved, bang, there are the feds.

I see an objection to poultry now. Well, damn. As a group, you can't seem to make up your mind. Direct dairy = safe, but direct poultry ≠ safe. You wouldn't get a better chicken from that farm in person than Tyson would.

And I know a chicken farm operator right here in SC. If you'd like, I can come back later this week and tell you all the stuff he has to do. It's usually more than people think, because they just don't know where to start.

Hey, it's exactly as I say: when commerical production of a product happens, especially in multistage operations such as the collection and processing and sampling of milk (or orange juice, or meats, or vegetables), there must be standards.

And you will note that "bootleg" vegetables are over-represented in the transmission of all sorts of disease. Hey, way to go, private farms and "organic" fans!

And other than identifying wishful thinking and other fantasies, I have to take a break on this topic until I know more about it. You may be surprised that what I've said so far is not so much from specific research into food production, but is a consequence of EPA wastewater license training I got ten or so years ago.

I'm not an adversary here. I merely insist that the rosy glasses come off, that "local" can be good but isn't what is being claimed.

> I do have confidence in my milk source and do
> agree that widescale commercial production and
> distribution of raw milk is not likely to be safe

And yet in the UK, France, Germany, and most of Europe raw milk is legal and widely sold, all without incident.

"However, the existence of sting operations like this is downright pathological. It indicates a serious organizational psychological breakdown at the FDA"

Pressure is increasing to cut budgets these days; they have to justify their salaries by pretending what they do is important. They have to claim ever more strongly that it's of the utmost importance. If they didn't do this terribly important work, see, they would be twiddling thumbs, and someone would say "cut their budget" and some of these leeches would have to go home and earn an honest living instead of spending their time taking tax money from honest Americans to then further go destroy the freedoms and livelihoods of other honest Americans. Viva La Revolución.

Here's the thing: if you want raw milk, I think you should be allowed to buy it. HOWEVER, if you get sick, you are ON YOUR OWN.

The only reason this is an issue is because people tend to sue anyone in sight for the consequences of their own stupidity.

Radwaste is totally correct on this one and you people are a bunch of nuts.

You can scream big government and all that shit all you want.

I don't know a darn thing about milk, farming, e-coli, any of that. I don't claim to.

I also am pretty bad at cleaning my toilets and floors. That's why I pay a woman to come in every other week to take care of that for me. It's great. My place is clean, and I'm happier because of it.

We, as a society, have decided that we don't know shit about dangerous foods and drugs and it would be a pretty good idea to hire some experts to see to it that we don't have to worry about that stuff. Much like my decision to hire an expert to clear away the short and curlys from my bathroom, It leaves us time to focus on things that are more important to our lives.

Paraphrasing Representative Barney Frank (whom I'm sure most of you hate, but I happen to think he's brilliant), government is simply what we decide to do together. We've decided to have someone look after this food danger thing so we don't have to bother with it. I think they're doing a pretty good job. So is my cleaning woman.

"And you will note that "bootleg" vegetables are over-represented in the transmission of all sorts of disease."

Yep, I pointed that out. Hey, way to go, regulation!

"And other than identifying wishful thinking and other fantasies, I have to take a break on this topic until I know more about it. You may be surprised that what I've said so far is not so much from specific research into food production, but is a consequence of EPA wastewater license training I got ten or so years ago."

You certainly seem willing to opine to a considerable extent before relieving yourself of that state of relative ignorance by catching up on the relevant literature. At least then your opinion will be more informed, if still contrary to the best available evidence.

"I don't know a darn thing about milk, farming, e-coli, any of that. I don't claim to."

Yes, a great deal of fear spreads through ignorance. Fortunately, that state is curable.

That's just the thing, damaged, I have a lot of other things to worry about. I'm not interested in your relevant literature.

My point is that we hire experts to take care of that stuff.

I have my own field of expertise that keeps me reading extensively and constantly about that particular field. That's my job. I'm an expert in something. I don't want to be an expert in everything. That would be impossible. That's exactly my point.

"Yes, a great deal of fear spreads through ignorance." I'm not afraid at all. Myself and the rest of our society have hired people to square all that away. So far so good. I've never been severely ill because of food or drugs. That leaves me time to concentrate on cultivating my expertise in my own field.

"My point is that we hire experts to take care of that stuff."

Your precious "experts" gave us bad science backed by the force of politics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exi7O1li_wA

Thomas Sowell had a great deal to say about intellectuals. Along similar lines:

http://freetheanimal.com/2009/01/the-experts.html

http://freetheanimal.com/2009/12/registered-dietitians-dispense-only-conventional-wisdom.html

http://freetheanimal.com/2010/12/self-experiementation-doesnt-trump-science-it-is-science.html

One size does not fit all. Monoculture is bad for everyone, particularly forced monoculture (and your health is increasingly becoming the assumed business of the state). And the ever-more frantic attempts to live life in a bubble -- the "wiffle life", as PJ O'Rourke termed it in PARLIAMENT OF WHORES -- mercilessly ignoring the fact that we are symbiotically 90% bacteria while obsessively scrubbing to beat Lady Macbeth to death with hand sanitizer -- appear to be having the opposite of their intended effect, and making us all sicker and weaker.

Note from Amy: This comment went to spam because it had so many links in it. Please, one link per comment. If you want to post a second link, post a second comment.

Raw milk is sold legally in many places. That being a fact, Rad and wD, there should be a lot of data on deaths caused by the consumption of raw milk.

Just a question to those advocating the legal distribution of raw milk and how the government shouldn't be regulating these things.

If the government shouldn't be regulating raw milk consumption, should they be regulating things like pesticides?

If so why, if not why not?

"Rad, P.S. Didn't some dudes die in China for poisoning dog and cat food. Market forces can be tough."

That wasn't the market. They were executed. Now, that would put some starch in our quality control shirt!

"If the government shouldn't be regulating raw milk consumption, should they be regulating things like pesticides?"

Uhh, they do both. Not only is that why this article came up (raw milk sting), you've brought up something interesting:

You can have more pesticide in your home than I could on a citrus farm of twenty acres. The difference? Commercial production.

This is anecdotal, but a "wow!" moment. Years ago, I went with a friend to help clean up his Mom's house after his stepdad died of cancer. In the garage was twenty 5-pound bags of Chlordane™. As you will see, it sucks that this was ever sold in Florida, and that Federal and state protections were late in recognizing the threat.

I am pleased to see that some of you have looked into the risks of raw milk. Come to think of it, I bet somebody IS inspecting the local dairy to see that they aren't polluting their fields with pesticide, and that their handling equipment is clean. Is that something we're suggesting be stopped? I don't think so. Yet it's the same agency, be it State or Federal.

Be careful of the "special pleading" fallacy. When you cite that a local dairy is superior, you're comparing it to collectives which handle hundreds of thousands of gallons a day by processes which are different.

What mechanism do you really have for determining whether what you eat is dangerous - based on the source - and when do you use it?

I am merely alert to the news. I don't get leafy greens for home preparation.

Unfortunately, there are greater risks of E. Coli in beef & dairy products now that cows are fed distillers grain, a byproduct of ethanol production. So until we can eliminate corn subsidies & the myth of ethanol being good for the environment, the FDA's warning is somewhat well-founded.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/06/06/distillers_2008/

@Matt -

And isn't it convenient that the solution to a government-caused problem is...

more government?

I have no problem with standards being set and enforced. I have a problem with a sting over something which COULD be monitored and standardized and safe, but is instead targeted because of political pressure from competitors.

Regulatory capture is a Very Bad Thing.

Radwaste says:

"Uhh, they do both. Not only is that why this article came up (raw milk sting), you've brought up something interesting"

I am well aware that they do both. That is the reason why I was asking the proponents of raw milk how they feel about regulations in other areas where they presumably agree with what the government is doing.

I simply have no patience for inconsistent logic and hence wanted to try and bring some of it to the surface which might make this discussion more based in reason.

Generally people who like the raw food movement are not fans of pesticides, in fact they tend to not like any “unnatural” interference with the food industry. Then they will claim things like freedom to do whatever they want without government regulation all the while ignoring the fact that the government also regulates the things they probably don’t want the “market” to control.

If the market had it’s way there would be more chemical intervention into our food products, not less, hence I find this market based argument to be unconvincing.

Under the strict liability of common law, polluters could be sued for trespass. I'd prefer that to the byzantine maze of protectionism and privilege currently in place.

That is the reason why I was asking the proponents of raw milk how they feel about regulations in other areas where they presumably agree with what the government is doing.

I simply have no patience for inconsistent logic and hence wanted to try and bring some of it to the surface which might make this discussion more based in reason.

Right, because eating raw dairy and eating artifical chemicals DESIGED to kill is the same fucking thing, from a logical standpoint ofcourse

What, pray tell, does the FDA think we did before pasteurization?

Well, Patrick, lots of people got sick or died. Not so much from contamination as such but from spoilage. That's why pasteurization was introduced in the first place.

Of course, that was before effective refrigeration. The original purpose of the process was to increase shelf life, not to 'make it safer'. Whether that is still necessary is a bit in the air.

Lujlp says:

"Right, because eating raw dairy and eating artifical chemicals DESIGED to kill is the same fucking thing, from a logical standpoint ofcourse"

Apparently my point went over your head.

The point I was making is that the government either has the right to regulate food processing for the purpose of enhancing public health or it doesn't.

Some people here have been making the argument that the government should essentially get their nose out of the raw food business because they don't have the right to regulate what people put in their mouths. Yet that same kind of argumentation would suggest that the government ALSO doesn't have the right to regulate pesticide as people would also have the right to eat pesticide ridden food as well if the "market" supported it.

Your argument now is about differences in the health impact of one over the other. That is an entirely different argument.

People are free to debate whether or not the government *should* be regulating raw milk on the basis of it's public health impact. They should not be debating whether or not the government has the *authority* to regulate raw milk unless they also want to tack on all the other things that the government regulates with regard to food production.

As a society we have decided that in the interest of public health the government has the authority to set guidelines for food production. If it is using that authority properly is a distinctly different issue.

Well put, luj. I think the notion that there is no need for government regulation because the market will take care of it is a fantasy. It's far too fragile and unstable.

But of course it's fine to argue about whether specific regulations are necessary. I don't deny that regulation in Western societies generally is out of control, trying to wipe away even the most miniscule risks.

Oops, I meant "well put Reality". My bad.

Saying "the market will take care of it" is not another way of throwing up your hands and having faith that somehow everything will magically work out. It is another way of saying that the best solutions for all peaceful, honest people are achieved when guns aren't put to their fucking heads.

And you will note that "bootleg" vegetables are over-represented in the transmission of all sorts of disease.

Um, really? Because what data set is that from? I did my thesis on food poisoning from produce and it was all from large producers except a few cases of hippies growing sprouts.

BTW direct poultry is completely safe and legal from farmers who process less than a certain number of birds. It's one of the few properly scaled regulations.

I don't mind having pasteurization laws.

What I do mind is that it's made it extremely difficult for me to get raw milk for any reason.

In Colorado it is possible, you have one way.

You have to own the cow.

So the solution is that several people have to buy shares in a cow to get the milk.

Oh nooooo! People are getting unpasteurized milk! Someone call the government!

Damaged Says:

"Saying "the market will take care of it" is not another way of throwing up your hands and having faith that somehow everything will magically work out. It is another way of saying that the best solutions for all peaceful, honest people are achieved when guns aren't put to their fucking heads."

That is all well and good, but we aren't discussing peaceful, honest "people" when it comes to food regulations.

The regulations are there to ensure that business does not screw over the consumers health in an effort to maximize the bottom line. When people say things like “the market will take care of it” they generally mean that somehow business will have to adjust their practices to compensate for the health effects they have on the populace.

Unfortunately business are not peaceful, honest “people”… instead they are amoral (notice I do not say immoral) entities that will get away with whatever they can to improve profits. As a result the proper role of government is to set the rules for what can be gotten away with legally and what can’t. This usually sets a monetary incentive system that either rewards or punishes the bottom line of businesses based upon whether or not they adhere to the regulations.

History tells us that the free market is not good at efficiently handling issues that don’t show up on the financial bottom line.

Letting the “market” handle things is a great deal like getting rid of the referees in the NFL. Do you honestly think the game would be cleaner with a lack of regulation? Or would the injury rate sky rocket?

Now raw milk may be an area that the government is overstepping, but that would have to be established by detailing the public health risks of drinking raw milk and showing that it does not pose the threat that many experts believe it does.

"Now raw milk may be an area that the government is overstepping, but that would have to be established by detailing the public health risks of drinking raw milk and showing that it does not pose the threat that many experts believe it does."

Reality - you say "may" I say "is."

How many died from drinking raw milk last year in the US?

Dave B,

The proper response sans tangible evidence is "may". If you want to alter my opinion to an "is" it will require you to make your case.

I don't just alter my opinion because someone says I should believe one way or another.

Furthermore, asking about a death toll is hardly the measure of health impact. Are deaths all that matter here when it comes to public health?

I mean, should the government only regulate health issues when people die? If so, how many people have to die before the government can step in and start regulating things?

Then if the government starts to regulate things and the death toll drops to an "acceptable" level for a year, does that mean it is time to get rid of the regulations that brought the toll down? Or is it an indication that those regulations should stay because they were effective?

You are trying to boil down a complicated issue to one number which is probably affected by the existence of the regulations itself.

Based upon your argument people should be able to purchase and keep live tigers in their homes in the United States. I mean, how many died from keeping live tigers in their homes as pets last year?

If you see that form of argumentation as being unconvincing, then you will also understand why your type of argument isn't convincing to me either.

I fall somewhere in the middle on this one. I do think people should be allowed to buy raw milk, at their own risk. But because a lot of people do not know the risks, or have the slightest clue why we started pasteurizing to begin with, farmers who sell raw milk should indicate the potential risks on the bottle label.

We've been pasteurizing for so long people forget why we started doing it. I have a couple of friends who planned to give their toddlers raw milk. They'd never heard of listeria, and didn't think "organic" "local" foods like raw milk could harbor e. coli or salmonella. That's a serious misconception that could potentially kill them and their kids.

I've eaten a ton of raw milk cheeses when I've traveled, knowing there's a small risk. And as an adult, that should be my privilege. However, it scares me to think of people buying raw milk for their little kids without having a clue that they might be risking something.

Call it a 'Beauty Product' and sell it...
http://www.theprovince.com/life/Ontario+milk+advocate+takes+over+controversial+Chilliwack+dairy/4034419/story.html

Well, if one million people were to own live tigers, and only one hundred of those owners were seriously injured or killed as a result, I would conclude that it does not pose a significant risk that would merit government intervention.

Measuring the number who did not own them would be meaningless.

By the same token, if 100,000 hippies like only drinking unpasturized milk, and do so daily, and only 50 of them got sick or died in a year, then I could conclude that the problem is overstated and it is not worth the cost to personal freedoms or the monetary expense of enforcing the regulations barring that substance.

SO...is it worth it? I seriously doubt it. Spoilage is less of an issue when every home has a fridge.

Hey, I'm still wondering about the answer to my earlier question.

If you don't have the time or expertise to check your food source, just what are you suggesting?

Because if you can't inspect your LOCAL guys, you aren't qualified to take over for the state or feds!

Robert Says:

“By the same token, if 100,000 hippies like only drinking unpasteurized milk, and do so daily, and only 50 of them got sick or died in a year, then I could conclude that the problem is overstated and it is not worth the cost to personal freedoms or the monetary expense of enforcing the regulations barring that substance.

SO...is it worth it? I seriously doubt it. Spoilage is less of an issue when every home has a fridge.”

This right here is a reason I am having trouble taking arguments in support of unpasteurized milk seriously.

You start by making up some hypothetical numbers that you have zero evidence for. Then you state what those made up numbers would imply if they happened to be true. Then you jump to an actual conclusion about the issue.

Exactly how did you get from a hypothetical situation with numbers you made up to a real conclusion?

I fully agree that raw milk *might* not be a big deal, but no one on the side supporting raw milk has presented any useful information that can be used to base an opinion on. It is all hypothetical situations, baseless conjecture, and talk about an adult’s freedom to do whatever they please.

Unfortunately life doesn’t work that way, public health is one of those situations where your freedom to swing your arms ends at another persons face. There are real consequences to other people when there are wide spread health issues. The scientific consensus at the moment suggests that raw milk presents a health hazard. If you disagree with this consensus please present the data that backs up your case (and that "data" cannot be anecdotal).

I fully agree that raw milk *might* not be a big deal, but no one on the side supporting raw milk has presented any useful information that can be used to base an opinion on. It is all hypothetical situations, baseless conjecture, and talk about an adult’s freedom to do whatever they please.

Conversly

I fully agree that raw milk *might* not be a big deal, but no one on the side denying raw milk has presented any useful information that can be used to base an opinion on. It is all hypothetical situations, baseless conjecture, and talk about a bureaucracy's responibility to protect us from ourselves

read a good blog about this the other day
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/raw-milk-in-modern-times/
something I didn't know
"Once upon a time milk was associated with 25% of infection outbreaks; in part due to pasteurization those rates fell to 1%. "