Toodles, Whole Foods

modb1rd

that's good rosen. I am not sure I can come up with any valid argument for that. I mean there is the rare very rare occasion that a seatbelt of helmet causes injury but I don't think that is a rebuttal. And I see PDX's point about questionable benefits from raw milk but they are there. hmmm. you may have bested me. and I love it.

pdxmouse

I suppose if they sold the raw milk with the reasonable expectation that people would pasteurize it at home that'd be similar. But they don't and they aren't. Help the vegetarian out- medium isn't fully cooked? Rosen- there are studies indicating that people drive safer when they don't wear seatbelts. I think it's bs, but you can find benefits to almost anything. Including, since it was mentioned above, smoking.

PDXPhotoGrl

Oh ok, I gotcha now. Yeah, cheese is different with the enzymes and salts that they add.I just couldn't figure out why aging milk that you would drink would actually be HELPFUL for the bacterial content.

FallinAgain

No, medium is not fully cooked.  No pink is fully cooked. Ok, then stores sell sushi fish that they don't intend people to go home and cook.  

tastyburger

w. helmet and seatbelt laws, it's not just that the gov't might have to pay for healthcare.  it's also that there will be more often emergency personnel and vehicles needed at an accident scene where someone was not wearing their seatbelt.  And the taxpayers pay for the fire fighters, etc., and the maintenance and use of their fire trucks as taxes.  Seatbelt laws have pushed collisions that may have been catastrophic in terms of emergency equipment/staff used to something that could be handled by one trooper and a tow truck.

pdxmouse

Didn't you say that'd been frozen?*I think a more apt comparison is lunch meat which is not processed in a way that's supposed to kill off bacteria. The FDA operates on the assumption that consumers will cook it at home, but I don't think anyone does. I think that should be changed so that either it's processed in a way that kills germs or it's more explicit that it should be cooked. *o/t: my mom had a friend in college who just rinsed and froze his dishes convinced that killed any germs. Ew, but it cracks me up every time she mentions it.

PDXPhotoGrl

Freezing doesn't kill germs, it just saves them for later.

noisy_penguin

He was just practicing cryogenics on his germs.

FallinAgain

Freezing is to kill wormies I think, not germies. Fair enough, Mouse.  I'm just really surprised that you are comfortable with the the govt./corporations deciding what level of risk is acceptable you to take.  That's all.

Knottie_22382082

there are studies indicating that people drive safer when they don't wear seatbelts.I don't necessarily buy it, but I think the people who do should be able to drive without one.  I was just saying that I don't have the fundamental disagreement with requiring children to be properly restrained that I do with requiring seatbelts/helmets of adults, who I think should be allowed to choose whether they endanger themselves in that way.  I don't think the same arguments applies to this situation and raw milk.  "I believe my child will benefit from the properties of this milk, and the potential bacteria risk is worth it to me" isn't the same, I don't think, as "I will drive more safely if my child isn't buckled up," since the latter still can't ensure that you won't be hit and your kid ejected from the car. 

PDXPhotoGrl

Did she say she thought it should be illegal, or that she didn't want to give her money to a company that promoted it?There's a huge difference there.

tastyburger

Freezing will only kill parasites in fish.  And you have to freeze them at unbelievably low temps for 7-14 DAYS for that to happen. for regular food, as PG said, it doesn't kill bacteria.  All it does is stop them from multiplying and life cycling (eating, shiitting, and dying).  As soon as the food warms up enough, the bacterial throw a huge multiplying, eating, shiitting, and dying party.

CaptainSerious

I don't think people often order their chicken undercooked on purpose though.No, but I think the key here is choice.  If a person buys raw milk, they are choosing it over the cheaper pasteurized milk right next to it on the shelf.  They know it's not the same, but are doing so because they believe it is better, and choose that for themselves.We know to cook our chicken because it's harmful if we don't.  We don't eat it rare because we have educated ourselves on the safety of the food we eat.  Just like someone consciously choosing to buy the raw milk does so because they desire that product over another.

wingedbride

I'm just really surprised that you are comfortable with the the govt./corporations deciding what level of risk is acceptable you to take. That's all.eleventy million percent this.

pdxmouse

Eh, I'm much more comfortable with the gov't deciding my risk than corporations. And they're already doing that on all sorts of  things I don't have the knowledge to judge the risks for myself (cars, etc).

Knottie_22382082

I'm much more comfortable with the gov't deciding my risk than corporations.The corporations aren't deciding your risk, though.  They're providing you the option to take the risk, yes, but that's not the same as someone saying "you must do this" or the government decreeing "you may not."  You still get to choose, and someone else who does want to take the risk gets to choose, too.  Win-win.  You want the government to decide EVERYONE's risk, instead of individuals practicing self-determination.

wingedbride

Eh, I'm much more comfortable with the gov't deciding my risk than corporations.see, i am not. i want less government control in my life. which is back to the abortion argument for me honestly because even though i do not agree with abortions for many of the reason people may have them, I don't want the government to control that.

PDXPhotoGrl

Sorry Mouse, you just totally lost me. This does not jive at all with your previous assertions that pregnant women should be able to be self-reliant enough to establish their personal level of acceptable risk.If this isn't an example of a personal level of acceptable risk, I dunno what is.FWIW, I think drinking store bought raw milk is not a good idea. I would drink it at the farm. This is my own level of acceptable risk.

pdxmouse

Did she say she thought it should be illegal, or that she didn't want to give her money to a company that promoted it?More the first, but I don't think they should be overturning laws either.

pdxmouse

I think if the gov't can prove a vested interest it's different than arbitrarily deciding what happens in my body. Especially if there's evidence that there's a marked benefit to me. In other words, deciding I need to wear a seatbelt is not the same as telling me I'm required to have surgery I don't want. So a car manufacturer deciding to go with a cheaper material that's less safe or ignoring a potential defect isn't making choices about risk for me? It's not like I have the engineering knowledge to make an informed decision. I try to be aware of products and safety, but I don't think that I have a way of measuring risks to myself anywhere close to thoroughly. And I trust the people I elect marginally more than people trying to turn a profit who would benefit from my ignorance.

wingedbride

There are as many people I didn't elect making choices for me as there are ones that I did. Congress is full of people who I did not elect. For the past 8 years, there was a rpesident I did not elect. And they are controlled by corporations under the name of lobbyist.I am seriously blown away by your viewpoint here. Abortions can cause mental and physical health problems with women I am sure. Could your argument about vested interest in something that could harm you run over there. Maybe you don't think so, but this is a very slippery slope.

FallinAgain

I don't get this viewpoint in a way that blows my mind beyond all description.

CaptainSerious

Ditto Fallin.I think if the gov't can prove a vested interest it's different than arbitrarily deciding what happens in my body. Especially if there's evidence that there's a marked benefit to me. In other words, deciding I need to wear a seatbelt is not the same as telling me I'm required to have surgery I don't want. What if the government thinks there's a vested interest in not allowing a woman to have an abortion and that you would markedly benefit by not undergoing surgery and the effects of anesthesia?

pdxmouse

The risks and discomforts in pregnancy are much higher than anesthesia and surgical risks. Still, if people tried to circumvent informed consent and hide those risks I'd hope the gov't would intervene. I think the standards for non-invasive regulation don't need to be as high as those for invasive regulations. I was trying to come up with a line that bans elective trepannation but allows for elective abortion or elective gender reassignment because I think the last two should be allowed and the first one not.

PDXPhotoGrl

Just in case the horse isn't dead yet, I thought this article is a nice look at both sides. It even makes the sushi comparison. [url]http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/01/19/raw_milk/print.html[/url] .

SarahBethBR

3 pages about raw milk and I'm focused on Wal-Mart.They may offer good jobs in small towns, but in the majority of cases, they underpay, cut hours to avoid paying for benefits, and use all around shady practices to keep their workers from earning a decent living.I've worked there, my husband has worked there, and I have other family members that still work there.  It's not a good place to work, and it's enough that we refuse to shop there.

FallinAgain

That is a good article. I wish they compared those outbreak numbers to that of other food.  They don't seems especially high.

_Fenton

You can get raw chicken at some restaurants in Japan!  I learned it by watching No Reservations.I am on the no-ban raw milk train.  The uneducated people are all buying pasteurized, antibiotic/hormone laden milk at the cheap grocery stores anyway.  I am more for banning things like trans fat because the people who don't have the education or access to information are more likely to be the ones buying these things.  Maybe not banned, but more prominent labelling?  I am usually for fewer laws, not more.  Because I like freedom, and in a semi-kidding way, I am OK with allowing people to make dumb choices even if it means they die.  Gene pool filters and all.  If you are going to buy "raw milk" and you see it is 12 times more expensive than regular milk, and you don't do research to find out WHY it's more expensive and thus learn about the possible side effects, and you buy the 12 times more expensive milk because more $$=better, then you deserve to die.I will say I agree with Bethie that WF is a status thing.  Certainly not in rich circles, just like shopping at Nordstrom isn't a status thing, because it's so common, no one thinks twice.  In certain circles here in the lower middle class Midwest, Whole Foods shopping carries a lot of implications.That said, I don't shop at WF that much because of $$, but I will likely not go there at all for awhile just to demonstrate "Oh you hate socialism?  Well here's my "free market" response to you! HA!"  Then I will return to my sporadic stops there in a few months, after my barely-there boycott has had a chance to make no impact whatsoever.

BobLoblaw

When I made the status remark yesterday I was thinking of an incident when I asked my old boss where she got her trail mix and she replied "Whole Foods. I only shop at Whole Foods." Well la dee dah, excuuuuuse me. And I have heard similar comments from others.

_Fenton

Well yeah, it's like when I hear my only-recently-non-poor friend talking about her Dior lip gloss or whatever.  People who have had money for a long time just say "my lip gloss."I would say in my world where I know some very country-esque people, Whole Foods is also seen negatively, like you are some kind of tree-hugging, pierced/tattooed, anti-establishment person for shopping there.  They allow people with piercings to work the checkout!  This is very radical.