Serial_Worrier wrote:Why risk drinking raw milk? Just take your probiotics to get the necessary bacteria you need w/o the risk.
And take vitamins/fiber waffles instead of eating fruits and vegetables. We get it.
Serial_Worrier wrote:Why risk drinking raw milk? Just take your probiotics to get the necessary bacteria you need w/o the risk.
PrestonSturges wrote: I'm not aware of any cases linked to raw milk, but as you say, the margin of safety is a couple of inches in a dirty barn.
http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/raw-milk-e-coli-o157h7-outbreak-strikes-minnesota-seventh-outbreak-in-2010/There have now been at least seven outbreaks of illness, involving three different dangerous pathogens, tied to raw milk since January 2010. There have been outbreaks in Minnesota, Nevada, Utah (2), New York and Pennsylvania, as well as a single outbreak that included illnesses in Michigan, Indiana, and Illinois. Raw milk consumers have been sickened with E. coli O157:H7; Salmonella, and Campylobacter.
Last night, health department officials in Minnesota have reported three cases of E. coli O157:H7 illness linked to raw milk from a dairy farm in Gibbon. The Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture are continuing to investigate the illnesses. All of the sick share a strain of the bacteria that have the same “pulsed field gel electrophoresis” (PFGE) patterns, or DNA fingerprint. One of the ill persons has developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS).
Earlier this month, Nevada health officials reported that a child became seriously ill with a Campylobacter infection after eating homemade cheese that was illegally sold door-to-door. The cheese was not properly pasteurized.
In April, Utah was the site of Salmonella and Campylobacter outbreaks tied to raw milk. According to a Utah Public Health Press Release, there were two separate clusters of illness linked to the consumption of raw milk. The first cluster included nine reported cases of Campylobacter infection among residents in Weber, Davis and Cache Counties. This outbreak was linked to the Ropelato Dairy. The second cluster, linked to the Redmond Dairy, included six reported cases of Salmonella infection in residents in Utah, Salt Lake and Wasatch Counties.
In March, raw milk caused at least 17 culture confirmed Campylobacter infections from Family Farms Cooperative in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana. Three cases were from Indiana, one from Illinois, and 13 from Michigan.
Another outbreak of Campylobacter was reported in February in Pennsylvania. State health officials there said approximately 10 people became ill after drinking raw milk from Pasture Maid Creamery. One of the ill developed Guillain - Barre Syndrome, and became paralyzed.
In January, Willow Marsh Farm in New York was implicated in five Campylobacter illnesses.
In the 21st century, dairy products now cause approximately 1% of reported foodborne outbreaks, but about 70% of reported dairy outbreaks are from raw milk or raw milk cheeses. Because of the way statistics are collected, we do not know how many people get sick from raw milk (or other foods) if they are not part of an outbreak.
Pops wrote: One of the ill persons has developed Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS).
mattduke wrote:It's clear raw milk persecutors have trouble distinguishing the two issues here. One issue is whether or not it is a good idea to choose to drink raw milk. Another issue is whether it right for someone to violently threaten, attack, steal from, and cage raw milk drinkers. I would never attack anyone for drinking raw milk, but apparently many here would. I mean really, what kind of mentally ill person would attack another person for drinking raw milk?
mattduke wrote:Yes, many diseases are communicable from mother to infant via breast feeding. It's clear raw milk persecutors have trouble distinguishing the two issues here.
One issue is whether or not it is a good idea to choose to drink raw milk.
issue is whether it right for someone to violently threaten, attack, steal from, and cage raw milk drinkers. I would never attack anyone for drinking raw milk, but apparently many here would. I mean really, what kind of mentally ill person would attack another person for drinking raw milk?
A perfect example of Survival of the Fittest economic politics masquerading as populism.
Pops wrote:issue is whether it right for someone to violently threaten, attack, steal from, and cage raw milk drinkers. I would never attack anyone for drinking raw milk, but apparently many here would. I mean really, what kind of mentally ill person would attack another person for drinking raw milk?
Dude, what are you going on about? If there is a problem with enforcement then fix enforcement, don't throw out food safety laws.
mattduke wrote:Pops wrote:issue is whether it right for someone to violently threaten, attack, steal from, and cage raw milk drinkers. I would never attack anyone for drinking raw milk, but apparently many here would. I mean really, what kind of mentally ill person would attack another person for drinking raw milk?
Dude, what are you going on about? If there is a problem with enforcement then fix enforcement, don't throw out food safety laws.
What exactly do you think "enforcement" is? Law is enforced with violence. It is literally, "enforcement." If it is wrong to use force to stop a behavior, then the behavior must be legal. If it is right to use force to stop a behavior, that behavior is rightfully outlawed. The corollary is that the situations in which police are rightfully violent are no different from the situation in which any citizen is rightfully violent. That is why "citizens arrest" is a basic concept. This is the fundamental principle of law.
mattduke wrote:What exactly do you think "enforcement" is?...
mattduke wrote:Certainly you will agree that alcohol should be illegal then. It is completely inconsistent to believe raw milk aficionados should be jailed or otherwise harmed while consumers and producers of alcohol are to be left alone.
Freshman Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul stood firm today on his position against raising the debt ceiling. In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room," the libertarian-leaning senator said he would only consider voting "yes" if the bill came with a balanced budget amendment.
"If (Democrats) want to spend the money, they need to be honest with the American people and say 'We've got to borrow $2 trillion because that's what we want to spend,' " Paul said. "I don't want to spend that much money."
But Paul said he's not concerned about the potential consequences of keeping the federal debt ceiling at its current limit.
"Our interest payment is about $20 billion a month," he said. "Our tax revenue is about $200 billion a month, so we're bringing in (nearly) $200 billion. We've got plenty of money to pay our interest."
Paul said the country could also bring down the debt by bringing back its troops overseas. With growing unrest in Syria tempting the international community to intervene, he warned against any further involvements.
"We're already involved in three wars, including the latest war in Libya, where we had no congressional vote," Paul said. "That's not what our founding fathers wanted."
PrestonSturges wrote:WTF does that even mean? "Balanced Budget Amendment" as in constitutional amendment that takes 20 or 30 years to ratify?
Rand is one of those guys who thinks he's a genius because his daddy is a politician[/b] and as a result nobody ever called him a fool to his face.
Return to North America Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests