• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Raw-milk confiscations begin

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
I should have added a double eye roll for those also against pasteurization. Let's also let our waste just drop in the streets. The Middle Ages were such a fabulous time for the human race - no diseases or anything rampaging through the population because of excellent hygiene and food practices.

Raw milk is MUCH safer than it was 100 years ago because of improved farm sanitation and testing. It's also widely sold in Europe and you don't hear about people dropping dead all the time over there. I wouldn't buy the stuff on a regular basis but as long as it's clearly labeled as being unpasteurized there's no reason not to let people purchase it.

The real travesty is the restriction on raw milk cheese in the United States. Most of the claimed health benefits of raw milk are hippy BS, but raw milk cheese is often significantly tastier.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
I should have added a double eye roll for those also against pasteurization. Let's also let our waste just drop in the streets. The Middle Ages were such a fabulous time for the human race - no diseases or anything rampaging through the population because of excellent hygiene and food practices.

You realize raw milk is available today in European nations and is safe when basic sanitary measures are taken, right?
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
You realize raw milk is available today in European nations and is safe when basic sanitary measures are taken, right?

Not defending the entirety of his statement but, in the US, you are some 150x more likely to get sick from raw milk than pasteurized milk and 13x more likely to be hospitalized if you do get sick

Another thing to keep in mind that more care and attention needs to be paid to ensure raw milk is safe and the current FDA system does not allow for even close to adequate oversight to make sure those steps are being followed
 

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
I've never understood the appeal of raw, non-homogenized milk. I don't really enjoy lumpy milk that is much more likely to get me sick, has no real health benefits, and doesn't taste much better.

I'm typically against government regulation, but I think this one falls under typical food safety guidelines where it's a major cause of food borne illness.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Not defending the entirety of his statement but, in the US, you are some 150x more likely to get sick from raw milk than pasteurized milk and 13x more likely to be hospitalized if you do get sick

Another thing to keep in mind that more care and attention needs to be paid to ensure raw milk is safe and the current FDA system does not allow for even close to adequate oversight to make sure those steps are being followed

It would make sense from a scientific POV to create proper regulations based on best practices rather than dealing with absurd regulatory BS. I'm old enough to remember that sealed beam headlights were required when they were long obsolete. Why? Because thats the regs. Thats our bureaucracy.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,569
3,762
126
It would make sense from a scientific POV to create proper regulations based on best practices rather than dealing with absurd regulatory BS.

I won't disagree with that but I won't hold my breath either. Congress has been fucking with the Food part of the FDA for much longer than they've been fucking with our health care
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
No, it still needs to be pasteurized.

There is no real way to guarantee that the milk will be safe simply by sniffing it. This is a classic "public good" issue here.

While cheese may be debatable (as many cheeses require cooking and aging and other processes that would reveal if the milk were bad before consumption of the finished product), milk is a small issue.

The biggest issue with it is still things like HgH, sanitary conditions, further examination of the industry as a whole to insure no cannibalistic practices ("recycling") and the proliferance of Mad Cow and others. Crying because you are not two steps from a cows teat is small potatoes.


Raiding and seizing it may be a little drastic, but since I do not know the whole story, I sense embellishment....
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
Shouldn't it be up to the individual to decide whether they want to consume raw milk or not? People should have the freedom to do risky things.

Consumer protection in general is more about reducing competition for the big corporate lobbyists who write the laws than about actually protecting consumers. The large corporate conglomerate of dairy farmers benefits from dairy production not being more local than it is now. The protection isn't even necessary in the first place because raw milk producers have incentive to make sure their product is safe.

Not that consuming raw milk is all that risky. It's risky if you drink conventionally produced milk unpasteurized, because it's from a cow in squalid conditions that necessitate things like prolific antibiotic use and pasteurization. A family's dairy cow is a different story as long as reasonable precautions are followed.

Conventionally produced milk is some nasty stuff. It's full of things that shouldn't be in milk at all because it's large-scale production.
 
Last edited:

ichy

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2006
6,940
8
81
While cheese may be debatable (as many cheeses require cooking and aging and other processes that would reveal if the milk were bad before consumption of the finished product), milk is a small issue.

I don't see why it's debatable at all. Other countries allow raw milk cheese and large numbers of people ARE NOT GETTING SICK. Everything does not have to be risk-free.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
12,035
1,134
126
Wow... Some of the posts are beyond retardation... This fear of milk is completely irrational.

Maybe we should be afraid of brown paper bags too. Or tap water...

I drank raw milk when I was a kid, and I've been drinking it for the past 6 months and loving it... I'm a 40 year old, healthy engineer... I think I can choose for myself what milk I want to drink...

Let the sheeple enjoy their gov't sanctioned pastuerized "milk product"...

It's amazing to see the lengths people will go to defend their right to have thier freedoms destroyed...

Do you at least boil the milk before drinking it?
 
Apr 27, 2012
10,086
58
86
I dont drink raw milk and I am not interested in drinking it but its ridiculous that the government wants to prevent people from drinking it. How about going after people committing real crimes, these people are pathetic
 

Joepublic2

Golden Member
Jan 22, 2005
1,097
6
76
The government isn't doing this to protect anybody's "health" (if you think the govt. gives a shit about anything other then their own power/jobs/wallets you're probably hopeless naive), they're doing it at the behest of large dairy producers who are looking to lock out smaller local producers who would actually be price competitive with the larger producers due to shipping costs (milk is mostly water and water is surprising dense and therefore expensive to ship), but can't afford the expensive pasteurization equipment. The sanitation problems associated with raw milk were solved decades ago and wouldn't be an issue with proper regulation and insurance/legal liability, just like mad cow disease is no longer a problem when you stop feeding dead animals to live ones of the same species.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
No, that is not either.

Conspiracy 101.

They are doing this so they do not have to spend more money for people in hospitals. The only time the government really cares about the individual is when it costs them more not to.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
The government isn't doing this to protect anybody's "health" (if you think the govt. gives a shit about anything other then their own power/jobs/wallets you're probably hopeless naive), they're doing it at the behest of large dairy producers who are looking to lock out smaller local producers who would actually be price competitive with the larger producers due to shipping costs (milk is mostly water and water is surprising dense and therefore expensive to ship), but can't afford the expensive pasteurization equipment. The sanitation problems associated with raw milk were solved decades ago and wouldn't be an issue with proper regulation and insurance/legal liability, just like mad cow disease is no longer a problem when you stop feeding dead animals to live ones of the same species.

Pretty much.
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
No, that is not either.

Conspiracy 101.

They are doing this so they do not have to spend more money for people in hospitals. The only time the government really cares about the individual is when it costs them more not to.

The best argument yet against Obamacare.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,774
0
76
The best argument yet against Obamacare.

Didn't the Supreme Court shoot Obamacare down? Most people do not agree with Obamacare but you also need to accept the FACT that companies are dropping insurance like a plague outside of your little bubble.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
Didn't the Supreme Court shoot Obamacare down? Most people do not agree with Obamacare but you also need to accept the FACT that companies are dropping insurance like a plague outside of your little bubble.

Nothing has come down yet.