Crying over raw milk
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Crying over raw milk.” Here’s a taste:
The entire kerfuffle over raw milk gives us a nice illustration of the competing interests of liberty vs. oppression, free markets vs. consumer protection and public health vs. consumer choice.
[...]
It’s become somewhat of a novelty for Wisconsinites to actually rebel against government regulation. I suppose it should come as no surprise that it’s happening over a glass of milk.
Odd the things people decide to become activists about.
I don’t care if you shove Health Care, or KRM rail up my butt, jus don’t mess whit my milk. Ya, hey dare, hey. Dis is jus to much, govurmint has gone to far, ainna?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 0956 hrs
Come on Owen, you lost me when you used the word “eons”. We all know Earth is only about 12,000 years old!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1049 hrs
If people are stupid enough to want to drink raw milk - that’s fine with me as long as it is very plainly known what it is and the health risks.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1315 hrs
I’ve never had it. How does it taste?
Who drinks milk as an adult anyway? I haven’t had a glass in a million years.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1322 hrs
I haven’t had a glass in a million years.
Wow you must be from the future!
Of course that means the world is still here after 2012. Tis a shame.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1349 hrs
I usually drink a couple of glasses of milk a day. Refreshing stuff!
Posted by Owen on March 16, 2010 at 1411 hrs
Our State legislature is voting tomorrow (Wednesday 3/1710) to further destroy our freedoms with AB440.
To it’s extreme you probably could think that parents could no longer tell there children what to eat if they’re not a licensed dietitian.
Most of the world drinks raw milk and we’re trying to tell people they cannot drink it.
Pretty soon you will not be able to breath without State authorization.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1439 hrs
Cry about milk but full body scanners at O’ Hare get no mention. Oh that’s right, we gotta get those terrorists who are boarding planes in Chicago with explosives in their underwear.
Maybe they hate us because of our raw milk?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1548 hrs
There’s only three times I have milk. 1st is whats left on the Chips Ahoy after I dunk. 2nd is the occasional bowl of cereal. 3rd is Ice Cream.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 1800 hrs
Thanks, because you are spreading the information just about this topic . Buy an essay or already written essay if you are willing get know much more!
Posted by EulaMason on March 16, 2010 at 1805 hrs
So, attempting to regulate food in a way that reduces illness is equal to “liberty vs. oppression”? Hyperbole alert!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2121 hrs
Most of the world drinks raw milk and we’re trying to tell people they cannot drink it.
a) please provide the source verifying your claim that most of the world drinks raw milk
b) there is no law being considered that tells people they cannot drink it. Only that it cannot be sold. there is a difference.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2124 hrs
They still got a paper in West Bend? Interesting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2130 hrs
George, outlawing it’s sale IS essentially outlawing it’s consumption… unless you think most folks have a cow parked in the garage next to their SUV.
Regulating the foods we are allowed to eat IS a type of tyranny. Who are you to decide what is best for me? Will you outlaw sugars next? Or animal fat? Perhaps red meat? Soda Pop? What will be bad for me next week, George?
What is it about liberals that makes them bristle at the idea of live and let live? It’s like a biological imperative for the Georges of the world to stick their big beaks into my business and tell me what to do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2139 hrs
So, attempting to regulate food in a way that reduces illness is equal to “liberty vs. oppression”? Hyperbole alert!
I agree. We must take steps to eliminate the rampant number of illnesses due to raw milk consumption. The constant news stories about it have been too many to mention.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2141 hrs
I have a question or two.
How is a government that’s incapable to stopping a guy on the terrorist watch list from getting on a plane going to stop the selling of raw milk?
How is a government that can’t figure out how to keep uninvited guests out of the White House going to stop the selling of raw milk?
I understand that’s federal and this is state, but the state is even more bumbling and inept than the Feds. Go ahead, pass your little feel good law. Prosecute a farmer from time to time for the egregious offense of *gasp* selling someone raw milk. I’m sure the practice will stop over night, just like the war on drugs has stopped the use of drugs.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2203 hrs
Who are you to decide what is best for me?
Yet in the abortion thread you want to make that decision?
Who’s the troll in this scenario?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2254 hrs
Regulating the foods we are allowed to eat IS a type of tyranny.
That’s fucking hilarious. Perhaps you should live a day in a truly tyrannical regime - keeping bad food out of your mouth is not tyranny, colleague.
And apparently you see no need for any health regulation? Live and let live?
I mean, why do we even have laws at all? Any attempt to regulate my life is tyranny.
Fuck Hobbes, let me live the way I want to!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2255 hrs
I mean, why do we even have laws at all?
That’s a good point. Good people don’t need laws since they won’t break them and bad people don’t need laws since they don’t follow them.
keeping bad food out of your mouth is not tyranny, colleague.
Wait…it’s OK for government to stop you from doing some things to yourself by your own choice (consuming raw milk) but government better not DARE interfere with a woman’s choice to have an abortion?
I suppose without this law rabid raw milk producers would stampede over the countryside forcing raw milk down the throats of unsuspecting citizens. Only government can stop this horrible menace from killing everyone.
Government people. Making less and less sense since 1776.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2306 hrs
colleague, George? Don’t you mean comrade? Come on George, don’t be afraid to use your usual vocabulary. We won’t beat you up too badly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2313 hrs
I presume everyone here is for legalizing drugs? Simply another example of gov’t tyranny to say I can’t use/buy/sell crack, right?
And we should legalize slavery and child labor, right? Let me decide who to employ and under what conditions, not the government.
And, I certainly should be allowed to lie in my contracts, cheat my employees, and beat my wife. I mean, c’mon, its tyrannical for the government to interfere with how I run my life. If people are foolish enough to fall for my deceptions and stick around for my abuse, that’s there problem.
RIGHT?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 16, 2010 at 2352 hrs
Wow. This from a guy who started out by decrying hyperbole. Get a grip, G.
Posted by Owen on March 17, 2010 at 0007 hrs
apparently you see no need for any health regulation? Live and let live?
I mean, why do we even have laws at all? Any attempt to regulate my life is tyranny.You got all that out of not wanting the government to select the types of food that people choose to eat? Impressive, George. Either we regulate evil big raw milk, or we stop having laws at all. Well thought through. Perhaps you’ve contracted some prion based brain illness due to your neighbors raw milk consumption. That would explain much.
Who are you to decide what is best for me?
Yet in the abortion thread you want to make that decision?Hm, so you equate milk regulation with abortion? Opinion, meet George… it seems that you two might be related.
btw, in the case of abortion, I am working towards preventing you from committing a murder. I’m not making a decision for you, rather I’m trying to stop you from making a decision for a baby that likely would not agree with your choice.
Just let them drink the raw milk fellas. It’s natural and it was done for years before pasteurization. It’ll hardly result in the downfall of the democracy ( I hear there is already a bunch in D.C. working on that day and night).
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0037 hrs
I’m just taking these stances to their logical conclusions.
Are you for governemnt regulation or not? You can’t pick & choose, can you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0055 hrs
I’m just taking these stances to their logical conclusions.
Are you for governemnt regulation or not? You can’t pick & choose, can you?
So. here are our choices:
1) Drink raw milk and live in anarchy
2) forgo raw as ordered by the benevolent government and live in total cradle to grave control.
Boy, it sure would be nice if there were some way to add common sense to our options and live in a place that had small limited government while still preserving individual liberty. I wish someone would write up a document detailing how we could accomplish that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0648 hrs
I wish someone would write up a document detailing how we could accomplish that
They did but it only took about 100 years to violate most of it. 200 years later? Forget it.
New scribbled words aren’t the answer since government doesn’t follow them anyway.
And, I certainly should be allowed to lie in my contracts, cheat my employees, and beat my wife. I mean, c’mon, its tyrannical for the government to interfere with how I run my life. If people are foolish enough to fall for my deceptions and stick around for my abuse, that’s there problem.
No that’s harm to another person, which violates a basic right endowed by a creator, or mother nature or is just a basic human right. Basically we only need 1 law….do no harm to another individual. Want to drink raw milk? Go ahead, but don’t come crying to me if there’s a consequence because of your choice.
The whole “oh you don’t like this law so ALL laws are bad” is a weak argument that’s been tried before. It doesn’t work and doesn’t contain any truth. Of course by that rational, all government people, mainly liberals, want everyone thrown into slavery where every aspect of their lives is regulated and controlled. They’ll allow people to get “paid” but in the end government will get it all. There is nothing about your life the government can’t run better. All of you simple people, especially minorities, can’t have a good life without government.
Government people. Making less and less sense since 1776.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0720 hrs
Pasteurization laws made a huge amount of sense when they were first passed. I can see allowing raw milk to be sold now because we have better quality control in the milking parlor and better testing procedures available to make sure that the raw milk will not cause serious illness. It is possible to sell it safely, but there won’t be and shouldn’t be fewer regulations. If you want to drink raw milk without regulations, get your own goat or cow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0914 hrs
Have they not already passed laws to make having farm animals in the city illegal so that you have to go through all types of machinations in order to exercise your freedom of choice? Again, they incrementally take your liberties in a fashion as to not make it appear that that is what is happening. A law to prohibit this, a law to prohibit that, and the Georges of the world diabolically wringing their hands with contempt for those who protest. Tell me George, are you the enforcer for your homeowner’s association?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 0937 hrs
The most ridiculous comment award goes to:
I’m just taking these stances to their logical conclusions.
Are you for governemnt regulation or not? You can’t pick & choose, can you?
Taking it to its logical conclusion? That ain’t logic. Your stance to its logical conclusion makes 1984 look like an advertisement for Democracy.
Of course you can pick and choose your regulations, you idiot! That is what Democracy is all about. Should we pass this regulation here and that law there. That is precisely what this post is about, getting info out about a proposed or in this case, current regulation, so that a majority decision is made to pass, or in this case, relax a law that may be outdated. Your logic infers that all Government regulation proposed is good (and good forever)and that is plain…well, idiotic.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1143 hrs
Are these not the same people who believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that “must” change with the times, only to fail to mention they mean it must change to suit “their” interpretation of the Founding Father’s intent. Something they have no concept of, the very thing they hold in the highest contempt?
We’ve allowed people like George to bastardize this country, and the ideals it “is” based upon to the point where the Founding Fathers wouldn’t recognize it today, forcing them to lay shame (yes, they would actually be so forthright as to do so) upon us so severely, we’d all be begging their forgiveness for letting it come to pass.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1223 hrs
Are these not the same people who believe the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that “must” change with the times, only to fail to mention they mean it must change to suit “their” interpretation of the Founding Father’s intent.
That pretty well reflects Scalia’s attitude, but I’ve not heard him pontificate on state health regulations.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1313 hrs
First, if there are nutritional or health benefits from drinking raw milk I’d like to know what they are. Smells to me like more hocus pocus vitamin supplement nonsense.
Still, if people want it I say let them have it. As long as there are warning labels and full liability for the manufacturer.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1342 hrs
Still, if people want it I say let them have it. As long as there are warning labels and full liability for the manufacturer.
That’s right, as long as we can sue successfully, regulation is not as necessary. Isn’t that what warning labels are for, to cover liabilities?
I have found public TV most interesting lately. The research clearly shows that healthy bodies have more bacteria in them than unhealthy bodies. The researchers have hypothesized that the lack of germs could be a major contributor to the crop of immuno-deficiency and later life allergies that have plagued the more recent generations.
This is not a rant against all purifying techniques in today’s food industry, I just think it is interesting and could have some disturbing connections.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1416 hrs
I’m in favor of warning labels. But I don’t want to give immunity to the manufacturers.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 1421 hrs
I would be in favor of warning labels if they held any consideration in a court. If they don’t, what is the purpose? At what point is a person responsible for his choices?
This is really the same argument as voter ID. You have stated you are in favor of voter ID, as long as the Government tracks every single person down and forces some sort of documentation on them. The individual has no responsibility whatsoever to make himself eligible to vote. At that point, isn’t it clear human nature to tend to vote for the party that does everything for you, or to not vote until the same agency gives you a means to vote where all you have to do is watch TV? Wall-E doesn’t seem so far-fetched anymore.
I think there is a whole lot of room between a nanny state and anarchy, but so many left opinions seem to put those two positions side by side on a scale.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1500 hrs
I drank raw milk for years growing up. I spoke with a man last summer who had had serious summer dust allergies: His allergy doctor recommended raw milk:
Cow eats plants = drink cow milk = no plant allergies.
He followed the doc’s advice and now feels great: No hay fever and other assorted summer allergies; no drugs.
Moo-ve over pollen!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1519 hrs
Voter ID is regulation. The question then becomes, who is responsible for paying for the regulation.
Congress already allows fraudsters to sell dietary supplements without much risk of being sued unless they actually kill people with the Dietary Supplement and Health Act of 1994 (DSHEA). It doesn’t matter if the dietary supplements are not shown to work for any reasons, as long as they have the ‘no FDA’ disclaimer, they can sell the snake oil to those who have not been properly informed.
Sure, you can claim that people should be informed, but how do they find out what is what if there is no law stopping people like Kevin Trudeau selling books that are full of lies? I support informed consent. The seller of the product has to either test it and provide test results or take total responsibility for any risks the buyer undertakes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1524 hrs
First, if there are nutritional or health benefits from drinking raw milk I’d like to know what they are. Smells to me like more hocus pocus vitamin supplement nonsense.
Here’s one from The Daily Green (*gag*):
The bottom line is that pasteurization (a process of heat treating milk to kill bacteria developed by Louis Pasteur for preserving beer and wine, not milk) not only kills friendly bacteria but also destroys the nutrient content of the milk. From Lipinski: “Pasteurized milk has up to a 66 percent loss of vitamins A, D and E. Vitamin C loss usually exceeds 50 percent. Heat affects water soluble vitamins and can make them 38 percent to 80 percent less effective. Vitamins B6 and B12 are completely destroyed during pasteurization. Pasteurization also destroys beneficial enzymes, antibodies and hormones. Pasteurization destroys lipase (an enzyme that breaks down fat), which impairs fat metabolism and the ability to properly absorb fat soluble vitamins A and D. (The dairy industry is aware of the diminished vitamin D content in commercial milk, so they fortify it with a form of this vitamin.”)
My family has been drinking almost exclusively raw goats’ milk for about three years, and have not had a single episode of illness related to the raw milk. We own the goats, we sterilize the equipment, we clean the udders, we ensure the milk is fresh.
We are not state-certified as a dairy producer, so I’m not going to give any identifying information, lest some do-gooder report me for child endangerment, but we’re loving it.
It is a sad day when we don’t have any does in milk and have to buy some colored water from the store.
And George, time to take your beta-blockers. Your blood pressure and stress levels must be off-the-charts with all these right-wing extremists wanting to make all their own decisions! Craziness, I tell ‘ya!
Me
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1524 hrs
Cow eats plants = drink cow milk = no plant allergies.
That’s not actually an explanation at all. We eat plants, too. The question that is not answered here at all is why unpasteurized milk would affect the allergies less or protect against allergies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1526 hrs
“That’s not actually an explanation at all.”
No, No - I by no means am able to explain the way this works. Sorry for implying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1726 hrs
38. I didn’t know this was a left/right wing discussion…
http://www.realmilk.com/press-release-12mar07.html
“A 2006 study published the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology reported that childhood consumption of unpasteurized milk resulted in large reductions in the incidence of asthma, eczema and hay fever. Blood tests revealed that drinking raw milk cuts levels of histamine, a chemical produced by the cells in response to an allergen, by more than 50 percent. This study corroborates numerous reports of asthma in children—a life-threatening condition that is increasing in frequency—clearing up after the introduction of raw milk into the diet.”
Research has demonstrated that a gut lined with healthy bacteria, called probiotics, can resist pathogens through a process known as competitive exclusion. As gastrointestinal bacteria compete for available nutrients, a healthy supply of probiotics will prevent pathogenic bacteria from thriving. Studies have shown that some probiotics will emit an antimicrobial compound to eliminate competitive bacteria and that other probiotics will produce a traditional antibiotic toxic enough to kill E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella.
Recent studies on raw milk have revealed numerous anti-microbial and immune stimulating factors that program the growing child for life against infection and allergies. These components are destroyed by pasteurization. Raw milk also contains good bacteria that populate the gut and keep pathogens at bay. “Scientists are only beginning to appreciate the role of beneficial bacteria in our food and in our intestinal tracts,” says Fallon. “The anti-microbial paradigm of medicine has been completely discredited; laws mandating pasteurization are based on 40-year-old science.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 1911 hrs
And yet I’m reading things which unequivocally say that there’s absolutely no evidence for any health benefits in drinking raw milk. The world is full of crystal-wearing, supplement-popping nutters who are ready to fork over their money—and risk their health in some cases—for products whose health benefits are completely unproven. Makes me very, very skeptical indeed. Even if the risk is small, why take it if there’s no benefit? I wouldn’t buy it.
Still, if people want it I’m not absolutely against it. Just put a warning on it and do NOT absolve companies from liability if their product causes harm.
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 2031 hrs
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4BN3QS20081224
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 2033 hrs
Yea, I’m not going out of my way for raw milk. A warning label and no liability protections is fair. An insurance company could figure out a product for this situation, yes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 2055 hrs
Just put a warning on it and do NOT absolve companies from liability if their product causes harm.
Why a warning? How about just a label or packaging that distinguishes it from pasteurized milk? As far the as the absolution from liability, I can see how that would be a good thing for ANY product.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 17, 2010 at 2058 hrs
Why a warning? How about just a label or packaging that distinguishes it from pasteurized milk?
Because we know that there are risks of pathogens and disease?
Posted by scott on March 17, 2010 at 2101 hrs
I’m in favor of warning labels. But I don’t want to give immunity to the manufacturers.
Again I find myself agreeing with Scott, a scary thought. Raw milk should be available for sale to anyone who wants it. The people who are buying it should be properly warned, and the manufacturers of it should not be immune from the repercussions of neglect.
People have been drinking raw milk for thousands of years, just because Louis Pasteur came along doesn’t mean that we should now make it illegal….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 0639 hrs
Don’t get me wrong, guys. I think there’s a really good case for simply prohibiting sale in the first place, labels or not. Producers want to consume it themselves, fine, but you can’t sell it. I just happen to think that the risk is not so great and the demand is there, so a label for sale would probably be ok.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 0656 hrs
Don’t get me wrong either, I am not a ‘no regulations for anything nutter’ (I think) so this is more of a devil’s advocate thing, but I would like to perform a ‘Scott’ here and turn it around.
I am not sure you could draw up a list of diseases that raw milk might be responsible for and then prove it was drinking raw milk that caused it so how would liability work on something this vague? If you get a disease on the possibility list you get to sue for compensation?
I just don’t think that is fair. Why can’t I sue the dairy market for getting asthma by drinking pasteurized milk? There is actual evidence that asthma is much less common in raw milk drinkers. If you give fair warning and a past due date on your label, what else should you be responsible for doing?
I would be in favor of not being able to sell at a supermarket because of the reduced shelf life, perhaps, but selling to the public Dairy direct should not be illegal unless there is proof that the cons significantly outweigh the pros. The current data on that is more than 50 years old. 50 year old medical technology! Think about what you are trusting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 0745 hrs
I am not sure you could draw up a list of diseases that raw milk might be responsible for and then prove it was drinking raw milk that caused it so how would liability work on something this vague? If you get a disease on the possibility list you get to sue for compensation?
I just don’t think that is fair.
I see what you’re getting at, but think it through a minute. Are you sure that injury was caused by a faulty airbag? Are you sure that your heart attack was caused by an unsafe drug? Are you sure your auto accident was caused by Toyota’s acceleration system?
You’re sure enough to sue, and the rest is up to the court. That’s the way it works, man. For thousands of liability claims. This shouldn’t be any different.
Why can’t I sue the dairy market for getting asthma by drinking pasteurized milk?
You can. Go for it. But, contrary to your remarks, I’m reading that there’s no reliable scientific evidence for any health benefit for raw milk. So good luck.
unless there is proof that the cons significantly outweigh the pros.
The more reputable authorities on the subject seem to think that this is exactly the case.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1022 hrs
Reputable authorities, eh? I know that some folks are all about selecting only the experts that agree with them, and then deciding that this makes them right. Not really true. An example:
Had we listened to “The Experts”, we’d be deep into Eugenics (racial cleansing by selective birth and sterilization) by now. America was all into that from 1910-to the late 1950s. States made Eugenics based laws and performed forced sterilizations. The government did Eugenics research. The US made immigration policy based on a list of preferred races. Famous people supporter the science of “the experts” (Margaret Sanger for example (planned parenthood founder), Rockefeller, Roosevelt, and Carnegie too). The US Academy of Sciences even adopted the idea. “The Experts” all agreed.
On a smaller scale, all “The Experts” agreed that it was a ridiculous idea that the H. Pylori bacteria caused ulcers rather than stress and excess stomach acid. Now we know H. Pylori to have been the cause of almost all ulcers.
Mostly off topic, I know… but just because experts don’t agree does not mean that raw milk may not hold some health benefits. “The Experts” don’t agree on Chiropractic care, or acupuncture, or macrobiotic diets… but I know folks who have been helped by those very things. Sometimes plain old common sense will lead you in the right direction, even when the pontifications of “The Experts” say otherwise.
You think raw milk works for you? Then I’d say buy some and drink it. The government and the busy body nannies should butt out and let you make your own choices on the matter. The nannies usually wind up being wrong in the end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1101 hrs
Reputable authorities, eh? I know that some folks are all about selecting
only the experts that agree with them, and then deciding that this makes
them right. Not really true. An example:An infinitely better example: American right-wingers who think global warming is a hoax.
Really, to think I should be lectured to by someone who holds this view themselves is ironic in the extreme.
Furthermore, you seem to be adopting a position that science cannot be trusted, that you’re better off making “your own decision” about what drugs work and don’t work, for example, or whether a medical treatment is safe. It’s like you see absolutely no role for scientific testing or government regulation of food and drugs.
That’s just plain nuts. You’d have the prescription drug market turn into the circus-like, snake-oil supplement market. No, worse. Because even supplement makers have to issue a statement saying that the FDA has not determined the substance treats any disease or condition, blah, blah, blah. I’m sure you would just want people to “make their own decisions” about that without “interference” from the “nannies.”
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1111 hrs
An infinitely better example: American right-wingers who think global warming is a hoax.
So every one of the tens of thousands of scientists who do not support your unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming (many of whom have changed positions on the issue) is a rabid right winger? Wow, the conservative movement must be growing exponentially. Actually, more and more, people who deny that the IPCC report is bad science are in the minority. none of the predictions are coming true. Just another great example of “The Experts” being wrong. Thanks for reminding me.
you seem to be adopting a position that science cannot be trusted, that you’re better off making “your own decision” about what drugs work and don’t work, for example
I’m saying that forming a theory and then supporting it with selected “experts” who agree with you is foolish. I’m also saying that “The Experts” are sometimes wrong… sometimes VERY wrong… and people who blindly believe in them because they are unable to look at other possibilities are closer to being Moonies than Scientists. That’s my position… common sense is better than ideological faith when it comes to science.
I wonder if the Scott of 1935 would have been a Eugenics supporter? Would he have been arguing that we need to keep out the Slavs and the Asians because they are polluting the gene pool? Would that Scott have been writing a letter to the editor in favor of sterilizing cripples and felons at taxpayer expense? From what you are saying, it seems he would have done just that, and he’d have felt himself very morally superior and benevolent in his beliefs.
Let them drink milk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1127 hrs
I believe I already said I’m ok with raw milk being sold. And I’m not talking about “tens of thousands of scientists,” I’m talking about YOU. The people who, as you say, “are all about selecting only the experts that agree with them, and then deciding that this makes them right” which is clearly what you’re doing right now.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1133 hrs
The more reputable authorities on the subject seem to think that this is exactly the case.
You don’t have to look up links or anything, but I am curious if you are citing ‘prevailing opinion’ or if you are talking about the common sense status quo, or about actual experts. That status quo is based on 50+ year old data that basically follows the logic: Pasteurization kills bacteria in beer and wine, it will kill them in milk too.
I am not sure there is any recent research that supports pateurization even in light of recent studies on ‘beneficial bacteria’. Raw milk has a shorter shelf life so it can go bad sooner, but I don’t think there even is any research on whether fresh raw milk from a sterile environment (which was unknown at the time of the decision to pasteurize milk) causes or helps cause any diseases.
The most likely reason for the initial legislation was a lobby push by grocers, because increased shelf life means less waste for them. That is a probable reason for the push to unrelax the law too. Grocers don’t want to sell it, but they don’t want the dairies to sell anything direct either.
Therein lies the rub, too. I am sure it is a limited market for raw milk. Hardly worth the dairy’s money to spend on research and anger their consistent buyer, the grocer. They have requests for it based on independent research. It is not a drug, it certainly will not cause mass disease, why can’t someone who believes in current studies, buy some at their own risk?
Which experts to listen to is always a problem too. I am just not sure there even are experts on the status quo at present.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1138 hrs
selecting only the experts that agree with them, and then deciding that this makes them right” which is clearly what you’re doing right now.
Actually, I’ve made quite a hobby of studying various theories and ideas that seek to define the real reasons that the earths climate changes. There are many good ones that better parallel the raw data than the Goracle’s Anthropogenic Global warming. AGW is more of an ideological pseudo science that combines social justice, anti-capitalist economics, and reams of skewed data that are just now being exposed on a large scale. I have no right wing spin on the issue. The massive engine that drives planetary environments could care less if Al Gore hates internal combustion engines, or that Scott supports his party line. It certainly could care less about the very minuscule interference of human beings.
That is exactly the problem. People mix politics and pseudo science (“The Experts”) to support an ideological perspective on an issue like the raw milk debate. You have essentially declared it to be snake oil, even though you have virtually no knowledge of the subject. While you would grudgingly allow people to buy it, you want it labeled and regulated like a can of Drano. Just more ridiculous nanny-ism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 1220 hrs
I am curious if you are citing ‘prevailing opinion’ or if you are talking about the common sense status quo, or about actual experts.
Not knowing a tremendous amount about the subject itself, I’m relying at this point only google searches like HEALTH BENEFITS OF RAW MILK and so on. If you do that particular search and examine closely the domain names of the first page of results, you find a lot of “raw-milk-facts.com” and “realmilk.com” and “realmilktruth.com”—none of which I recognize as authoritative. But there is “usnews.com” story. It says health benefits from the consumption of raw milk are unproven and cites the CDC. It does say that there is “some evidence” of a protective effect regarding allergies, but that authors of those studies don’t recommend raw milk presumably because the risks outweigh the benefits. It’s an interesting article, by a real journalist in a real news outfit. It’s not at all like the web sites that spring up around the idea that vaccination causes autism and other widespread bullshit. That’s about all I know. And I’m certainly ready to be shown better if I’m wrong.
To this situation I’m also bringing a whole lot of skepticism about health claims for various products, my knowledge about how easily people can become convinced of something that isn’t true, and their natural inability to sensibly weigh risks.
Posted by scott on March 18, 2010 at 1719 hrs
my knowledge about how easily people can become convinced of something that isn’t true, and their natural inability to sensibly weigh risks.
...and that, folks, is the central issue that all liberal nanny ideas have at their core, from forced health care to raw milk regulation, to everything else they want to mandate. It shows the elitist belief of some liberals that they are wiser than everyone else, that they see more clearly what people SHOULD be doing, and that it is benevolent of them to use that wisdom to protect the poor unwashed masses, at the expense of personal liberty.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen it more clearly illustrated or plainly admitted. Thank you Scott.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 18, 2010 at 2157 hrs
Total Entries: 19655
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 08:28 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 98
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 09:50 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).