Toodles, Whole Foods

CaptainSerious

This basically boils down to your view of the function of government. I'm in the milkjug with Fallin, et al., saying that I'd like to be able to make my own decisions, thanks. The government is never going to be able to regulate away everything that is dangerous, and I wouldn't want it to if it could. There has got to be a limit to the extent to which people expect the state to protect them from themselves.And this is why I think cigarettes should remain legal.  Yes, there are other substances which are illegal which are less harmful, but I would argue that those should be legal, too, rather than vice-versa.

pdxmouse

Before it was banned or controlled early last century raw milk was behind a lot of childhood mortality. For centuries. Food safety measures in general have had a huge effect in lowering childhood mortality. [url]http://books.google.com/books?id=idm99dX1XUoC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=pasteurization+childhood+mortality&source=bl&ots=_b31l5xDhe&sig=IW55XmRXMqUSVlRWSQS9yHtgNpw&hl=en&ei=QJeFStKdEI_atgOM5PSiBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=pastuerization&f=false[/url] Anyway, cites on dangers of raw milk: [url]http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/rawmilk.html[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/cheesespotlight/cheese_spotlight.htm[/url] [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/03/AR2007080301646.html[/url] [url]http://www.foodsafety.gov/~dms/rawmilk.html[/url] [url]http://www.notmilk.com/forum/463.html[/url]

FallinAgain

Wait.  Are you basing all this "regularly kills (present tense) people" stuff on events happening before early last century?  Hell, breathing regularly killed people centuries ago.  We have a far better idea of safe food producing practices (even though we don't follow them--see ground beef) now, not to mention things like doctors and antibiotics.

pdxmouse

I didn't mean to imply that raw milk will kill or hospitalize most people who drink it, but that with regularity there are people who die or are hospitalized as a result of drinking raw milk. And before pasteurization it was common. I don't understand why anyone would want to roll back one of the hugest successes in food safety, but I don't understand why people advocate for eliminating the FDA either.

CaptainSerious

I, for one, do not believe that you can compare infant mortality rates from last century to those of current times and pinpoint one cause for the decline.  Is there a correlation, sure; does that mean that raw milk killed those babies, no.Also, the sheer fact that there are people who are aware of the risks and still wish to consume it should be reason enough to keep it legal.  Why should any government tell me I can't do something to myself, that will not impact anyone else, because it might be dangerous?

FallinAgain

People, including children, die from eating hamburgers "regularly" too.  Do you want to ban those? 

modb1rd

eh why not? SkiccAlso, the sheer fact that there are people who are aware of the risks and still wish to consume it should be reason enough to keep it legal. Why should any government tell me I can't do something to myself, that will not impact anyone else, because it might be dangerous? How do you feel about helmet and seatbelt laws?  

PDXPhotoGrl

While I do not think that raw milk should be outlawed, I just want to point out from a bacterial standpoint, there is a HUGE HUGE difference between raw milk fresh from the cow (say, within a day) and raw milk that's a few days or more old.The bacteria isn't in the milk itself, but is introduced from the milking and handling process. Fresh from the cow, there is going to be very very little bacteria, as it has had little time to divide and multiply. So, fresh from the cow is probably the safest time to drink it, which is probably why you farm girls and your families were perfectly safe.Winged, I have no idea why aging helps the bacterial content, as bacteria are quite happy in the fridge and live a long time. They don't 'dissipate'. I can't find anything about aging milk on teh google, just cheese, can you point me in the right direction?On a tangential note, my mother drank raw milk throughout her entire pregnancy with me. She was following some book that touted their diet as a way to have smarter babies. Side eye.

FallinAgain

I think there are some studies that suggest helmet laws with face shields (or at least safety glasses) make everyone safer b/c of something about cyclists not get distracted from things flying in their eyes.  I'm ok with that.  I think you should get to risk going through your windshield if you don't want to wear a seatbelt.

pdxmouse

Partially. I think there's plenty of evidence that unless patrolled and enforced food safety doesn't get met. And we don't have the resources to adequately patrol and enforce the regulations we have. I'm not convinced that food safety is better now than it was in 1900. With mega farms and processing plants it might even be worse in some cases. But if you see the cites above, even "clean" raw milk contains levels of harmful bacteria. The last century is the last time it was widely practiced, so it makes sense to draw on those experiences.

PDXPhotoGrl

helmet laws with face shieldsUntil you get a bee inside your face shield. That's distracting.

AngieP900

She was following some book that touted their diet as a way to have smarter babies.Well, in her defense, you turned out to be a doctor-lawyer-astronaut-cowboy-lt. governor. So she may have been on to something

modb1rd

I can also assure you sneezing inside a faceshield sucks!

Knottie_22382082

How do you feel about helmet and seatbelt laws?I'm not SkiCC, but I would classify them right alongside banning raw milk &c.  I personally think you're an idiot if you ride without a helmet or don't wear your seatbelt, but you're not endangering anyone but yourself.  I don't think it's the government's place to regulate whether I take care of myself when my actions have absolutely zero impact on anyone else.  Laws against speeding, drunk driving, driving while on the phone etc. protect the innocent people you might run over.  If you want to scatter your own brains across the pavement, that should be your own choice.I don't oppose laws requiring children to be properly restrained, however, since kids with negligent parents do need to be protected.

FallinAgain

Again, lots of foods are harmful, short and long term.  People should get to decide the risks for themselves and their families.

shanollee

Well, in her defense, you turned out to be a doctor-lawyer-astronaut-cowboy-lt. governor. So she may have been on to something Angie, between this and your Darwinism comment I am loving you today.  Not that I don't like you every day, but today especially

CaptainSerious

How do you feel about helmet and seatbelt laws?In our current system, I'm okay with them, because a person who gets into an accident without a helmet or seatbelt will likely incur greater medical expenses for which others will likely have to shoulder the cost--either through insurance or Medicaid.However, in my ideal situation, a person would have the option of "opting-out" of using a helmet or seatbelt on their car/medical insurance plan.  What this would mean is that if they were in an accident and weren't wearing a helmet or seatbelt, the insurance and government would not cover their costs.  If the person does not opt-out, the medical bills would be covered.  This isn't an entirely outlandish idea, as NJ already allows you to "opt-out" of some of your litigation rights for reduced car insurance premiums.

modb1rd

ah but Rosenjoe, wouldn't the logical extension of your argument be that parents couldn't feed their kids raw milk? (btw I am just stirringshit. I actually don't care at all).

pdxmouse

Well now we know why you're such a foffing smarty, A. People, including children, die from eating hamburgers "regularly" too. Do you want to ban those? You really want to ask the vegetarian that? Kidding. I believe in most states it's illegal to sell hamburger that's not fully cooked (at least it's been illegal wherever I've lived), although you're welcome to make it and eat it in your own home. This sounds strangely familiar...

FallinAgain

In our current system, I'm okay with them, because a person who gets into an accident without a helmet or seatbelt will likely incur greater medical expenses for which others will likely have to shoulder the cost--either through insurance or Medicaid.But isn't this true of choosing to smoke or drink raw milk too?  They get sick, we all pay.

PDXPhotoGrl

Well, my little sister is an MD-to-be at the top of her class, and she did not get raw milk in utero. So, who knows -- genetics and good parenting might just be enough.Lt. Governor. I'm putting it on the list.

FallinAgain

I've never lived in a state where I couldn't order a burger medium.  But stores sell ground beef that can make people sick if people choose to take the risk of eating it. Yes that does sound familiar.

CaptainSerious

***In our current system, I'm okay with them, because a person who gets into an accident without a helmet or seatbelt will likely incur greater medical expenses for which others will likely have to shoulder the cost--either through insurance or Medicaid.***But isn't this true of choosing to smoke or drink raw milk too? They get sick, we all pay. The difference is that the person with brain damage/debilitating injuries will likely have substantially higher medical costs over a longer period of time.

Knottie_22382082

wouldn't the logical extension of your argument be that parents couldn't feed their kids raw milk?I know you were just shitstirring, but I'm going to answer anyway.  I don't think it's a logical extension, since raw milk actually has health benefits, whereas going without a seatbelt/helmet does not (of which I am aware, anyway).  Comparing apples and basketballs.

FallinAgain

Than someone with cancer or emphysema?  I'm not sure I buy that, but even so, cumulatively, there are a lot more people engaging in risky food behaviors that up med costs than in driving without helmets or probably seatbelts.

PDXPhotoGrl

since raw milk actually has health benefitsQuestionable, smarter babies included.

CaptainSerious

I love Fallin's ground beef comparison.  I only eat meat rare, so I buy steak and we grind it at home to make rare burgers.  Still, I don't remember the last time I heard of someone getting sick off undercooked ground beef.Let's take it a step further:  undercooked chicken is more likely to sicken a person.  Why not make chicken illegal?

CaptainSerious

I get where you're going Fallin, which is why I'm okay with the current situation, but I'd really rather see the opt-out scenario.

wingedbride

Winged, I have no idea why aging helps the bacterial content, as bacteria are quite happy in the fridge and live a long time. They don't 'dissipate'. I can't find anything about aging milk on teh google, just cheese, can you point me in the right direction?PDX, I am talking about aging the cheese from raw milk, not the milk itself. This was informaiton given to me by a chef as to why Texas allows raw milk aged 30 days. I actually have not seen the research on it.

noisy_penguin

I don't think people often order their chicken undercooked on purpose though.While I love pink-to-bloody steak, I have a hard time with pink in my hamburger. Waiters at most places here default to asking if you want your burger cooked medium, which I find odd. They have the disclaimer on the menu, but why make medium a default?