Why is the FDA using swat teams on raw milk?

[DominionSeraph]

you either need to finish your education, or just quit now.

...because it's a disaster up to this point.

The judgements of inferiors are of no value.

DS: 2+2=4
zin: You're embarrassing yourself, DS. Everyone knows that 2+2=22
DS: ...
DS: Continuing on...

 

[DominionSeraph]

the economy invented specialization for a reason. i have neither the time nor the skill nor the real estate to safely raise a cow. but i can trade what i do have for the products of it. there's no law of nature against that.

There also is no law of nature against the government preventing it.
It has good reason to. The food market is of vital economic importance, and just a few deaths can have major economic consequences as vast swaths of consumers shift their consumption habits in fear response.
Human decision-making is quite imperfect, and to properly regulate things so as to avoid unnecessary negative effects, governments have to take the imperfections into account. Your publicly available choice to consume an unsafe product creates in another the availability to err, and the response to the availability of that error must be weighed.
The negative consequences of keeping that error available in the system outweigh any positive consequences of allowing stupid people to race each other to a Darwin Award. So we regulate.

 

[zinfamous]

There is nothing in the definition of "human" that prevents one from living by breathing chlorine gas. "Human" is actually given quite a range in terms of biological markers. Mental/social/behavioral aspects take precedence -- so much so that we can attach the word "inhuman" to a being with a standard human physical archetype if their behavior significantly deviates from the norm.

The interactions between humans and chlorine gas as it stands is just an accident of nature. It is not a modal necessity.

Please find some metal range. You're boring me.

see, folks. this is what happens when you choose to interact with cartoons rather than people. You find people inferior, and cartoons relevant.

DS: are you also married to a pillow like some of those creepy japanese dudes?

 

[MotF Bane]

The judgements of inferiors are of no value.

DS: 2+2=4
zin: You're embarrassing yourself, DS. Everyone knows that 2+2=22
DS: ...
DS: Continuing on...

That's inaccurate. It goes more like this...

DS: DERP!!! DERP DERP!
Everyone: You're an idiotic troll.
DS: DERPY DERP HERPADERP!

You've effectively ruined this thread by posting continuous streams of irrelevant disconnected bullshit, and never actually providing anything useful, nor answering any questions, but rather trolling your merry way through the thread.

Go back to your Psych 101 courses, the adults are talking here.

 

[DominionSeraph]

see, folks, because 2+2=22, 3+3 must equal 33, and 4+4 must equal 44.

*yawn*

GIGO.

 

[spidey07]

There is nothing in the definition of "human" that prevents one from living by breathing chlorine gas. "Human" is actually given quite a range in terms of biological markers. Mental/social/behavioral aspects take precedence -- so much so that we can attach the word "inhuman" to a being with a standard human physical archetype if their behavior significantly deviates from the norm.

The interactions between humans and chlorine gas as it stands is just an accident of nature. It is not a modal necessity.

Please find some metal range. You're boring me.

Take your derailment outta my thread. This was going well, civil and educational until you showed up. This thread is about raw milk which as we've seen from people extremely familiar with it posting things called "first hand knowledge" or "personal experience".

Outta my thread, go shit somewhere else.

 

[torpid]

No one should be talking about the right to have access to raw milk as a consumer. The issue is whether one ought to have the right to SELL raw milk to consumers who are willing and able to buy it. The FDA is not likely to go after the people buying the milk; only the people selling the milk are getting into trouble.

To forbid this transaction because the milk could possibly be contaminated with lysteria is inconsistent with FDA practices. Pasteurized milk has many, many dangers to it - especially when it comes to large milk brands - and the government reacts to these dangers by requiring testing and by requiring the distributors of milk to meet certain safety standards. What they are doing with raw milk has the effect of claiming that it is never safe no matter what tests or standards are met. The only other possible argument would be that the FDA doesn't have enough resources to inspect each raw milk facility adequately, which to me means that the government ought not impose restrictions or ought to contract with an agency to do it for them.

Some states in the US already allow raw milk to be sold to the general public in stores. They have stringent standards and requirements for purveyors of raw milk that go well beyond what is expected of pasteurized milk. It is therefore somewhat cumbersome to obtain rights to sell it, but at least it is possible.

So all of the gibberish about people in poverty buying raw milk isn't really material to the discussion. The question is whether a farmer should be prevented from selling raw milk to the general public. Given that they are free to sell raw milk to cheesemakers and other sub-sections of the populace, it seems that the governing bodies are already on weak ground in their argument about raw milk.

 

[AreaCode707]

Mods, as OP has requested the thread derailer to leave the thread, any way we could get a helpful backup suggestion? DS has had several opportunities and invitations to continue participating in the discussion on topic and has chosen not to.

 

[AreaCode707]

No one should be talking about the right to have access to raw milk as a consumer. The issue is whether one ought to have the right to SELL raw milk to consumers who are willing and able to buy it. The FDA is not likely to go after the people buying the milk; only the people selling the milk are getting into trouble.

To forbid this transaction because the milk could possibly be contaminated with lysteria is inconsistent with FDA practices. Pasteurized milk has many, many dangers to it - especially when it comes to large milk brands - and the government reacts to these dangers by requiring testing and by requiring the distributors of milk to meet certain safety standards. What they are doing with raw milk has the effect of claiming that it is never safe no matter what tests or standards are met. The only other possible argument would be that the FDA doesn't have enough resources to inspect each raw milk facility adequately, which to me means that the government ought not impose restrictions or ought to contract with an agency to do it for them.

Some states in the US already allow raw milk to be sold to the general public in stores. They have stringent standards and requirements for purveyors of raw milk that go well beyond what is expected of pasteurized milk. It is therefore somewhat cumbersome to obtain rights to sell it, but at least it is possible.

So all of the gibberish about people in poverty buying raw milk isn't really material to the discussion. The question is whether a farmer should be prevented from selling raw milk to the general public. Given that they are free to sell raw milk to cheesemakers and other sub-sections of the populace, it seems that the governing bodies are already on weak ground in their argument about raw milk.

I think the bolded is such a key point. Where raw milk is available, raw milk producers are held to a higher standard than pasteurized producers, which makes sense considering the relative risks of contamination. What doesn't make sense is entirely prohibiting sale of a food product most of the rest of first world consumes on a regular basis. If raw milk was such a risk to public health, most of Europe would be in a panic right now.

Selling raw milk to cheesemakers isn't actually as easy as it sounds, btw.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Take your derailment outta my thread.

The inability of others to connect the rails of reason != derailment.
If your system of reason cannot be shown to be valid, you've built your house on sand. I'm merely demanding support for the notion that these underlying systems can be trusted to reach a true conclusion when starting from true premises. Conclusions that certain propositions are "by definition" when they are in fact not does tend to support the notion that the underlying system of reason being used has major holes.

I am pointing out those holes and demanding that they be fixed before I'll accept that the person in question has a rational argument. But it's junior-league in here, so y'all don't even know where to begin.
Pretty sad.

 

[busydude]

But it's junior-league in here, so y'all don't even know where to begin.

Why don't you find another discussion forums which has abundance of highly intelligent like minded people.

WARNING: NSF anyone except pony boy!!!!

http://www.mlparena.com/Forums.html

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Why don't you find another discussion forums which has abundance of highly intelligent like minded people.

http://www.mlparena.com/Forums.html

Dang, you should give a guy some warning before clicking on that!

 

[DominionSeraph]

The only other possible argument would be that the FDA doesn't have enough resources to inspect each raw milk facility adequately, which to me means that the government ought not impose restrictions or ought to contract with an agency to do it for them.

Huh? Not having the resources to regulate to the nth degree means that one may not regulate at all? Sorry, the government is quite allowed to go for maximum net gain for minimum cost.
The benefits of having a safe food supply far outweigh that of having raw milk present. The amount of oversight required to ensure that raw milk safety is to the level that does not compromise the perception of safety of the US food supply is apparently greater than the American people wish to pay for. And the American people are not willing to allow it with no oversight. So it is not allowed in the chain.

The question is whether a farmer should be prevented from selling raw milk to the general public. Given that they are free to sell raw milk to cheesemakers and other sub-sections of the populace, it seems that the governing bodies are already on weak ground in their argument about raw milk.

As we've already seen, cheesemakers are regulated. And sales to subsections of the population through pathways that are outside that of the general food market will not necessarily be connected to the general food market in the eyes of the population.
If I read that some fool has gone and drowned himself in a lake, am I now worried that my bottled water may jump down my throat and kill me? No, I am quite able to separate the pathways involved.
If someone kills themselves with raw milk purchased through a specialty store, I am also capable of separating his decision from that of mine when faced with the racks of milk available at my grocery store.

 

[Perknose]

We have received several complaints about DominionSeraph trolling and derailing this thread.

His opinions are allowed, however. What I suggest is that each and every one of you put him on ignore. If you think him a troll, then deny him the attention that every troll craves.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[AreaCode707]

We have received several complaints about DominionSeraph trolling and derailing this thread.

His opinions are allowed, however. What I suggest is that each and every one of you put him on ignore. If you think him a troll, then deny him the attention that every troll craves.

Perknose
Forum Director

Sounds good. As long as he's posting on-topic opinions then I totally welcome his presence in the thread. It's the name-calling pseudo-logic/philosophy mud-slinging posts that were getting old.

 

[AreaCode707]

Huh? Not having the resources to regulate to the nth degree means that one may not regulate at all? Sorry, the government is quite allowed to go for maximum net gain for minimum cost.
The benefits of having a safe food supply far outweigh that of having raw milk present. The amount of oversight required to ensure that raw milk safety is to the level that does not compromise the perception of safety of the US food supply is apparently greater than the American people wish to pay for. And the American people are not willing to allow it with no oversight. So it is not allowed in the chain.



As we've already seen, cheesemakers are regulated. And sales to subsections of the population through pathways that are outside that of the general food market will not necessarily be connected to the general food market in the eyes of the population.
If I read that some fool has gone and drowned himself in a lake, am I now worried that my bottled water may jump down my throat and kill me? No, I am quite able to separate the pathways involved.
If someone kills themselves with raw milk purchased through a specialty store, I am also capable of separating his decision from that of mine when faced with the racks of milk available at my grocery store.

Based on that bolded section, why do you support the FDA's seizure of a product line (aged cheeses) that cannot carry the contamination that they tested for (listeria)? Those are separate pathways.

 

[waggy]

Sounds good. As long as he's posting on-topic opinions then I totally welcome his presence in the thread. It's the name-calling pseudo-logic/philosophy mud-slinging posts that were getting old.

agreed.

 

[waffleironhead]

Based on that bolded section, why do you support the FDA's seizure of a product line (aged cheeses) that cannot carry the contamination that they tested for (listeria)? Those are separate pathways.

Is the cheese aged in the same packaging that it would be sold in? From the story you posted earlier it was hard to tell if the cheese could have been contaminated during packaging, since there was listeria found in multiple places across the facility.

I'm not sure why they would have enforced a recall on the aged cheese, but signs point towards poor sanitation in the facility.

 

[AreaCode707]

Is the cheese aged in the same packaging that it would be sold in? From the story you posted earlier it was hard to tell if the cheese could have been contaminated during packaging, since there was listeria found in multiple places across the facility.

I'm not sure why they would have enforced a recall on the aged cheese, but signs point towards poor sanitation in the facility.

Good question. Cheese is not aged in the packaging and they didn't find any contamination in the packing room where the cheese was wrapped up before sale. As linuxboy pointed out earlier, listeria exists everywhere, even with the best sanitation you cannot eradicate it, not all strains of listeria are harmful and the FDA never tested to discover what strain they were dealing with.

 

[linuxboy]

Is the cheese aged in the same packaging that it would be sold in? From the story you posted earlier it was hard to tell if the cheese could have been contaminated during packaging, since there was listeria found in multiple places across the facility.

This was the core of the argument and the basis on which the in rem seizure petition was granted. It is theoretically possible that contamination could have occurred. However, during testing, the evidence of listeria was confined to a small portion of the facilities. A portion physically separated and isolated from the rest of the premises (there were multiple aging caves, segregated by risk factor to minimize possibility of cross-contamination).

But, after tests revealed nothing in the non-affected areas, and after the owners requested FDA assistance for determining best practices, and guidance for how to proceed, after that they were shut down.

It was a sloppy job on the government's part, not based on genuinely working with a producer and giving clear guidance, but rather on what seems like some sort of vendetta.

 

[waffleironhead]

This was the core of the argument and the basis on which the in rem seizure petition was granted. It is theoretically possible that contamination could have occurred. However, during testing, the evidence of listeria was confined to a small portion of the facilities. A portion physically separated and isolated from the rest of the premises (there were multiple aging caves, segregated by risk factor to minimize possibility of cross-contamination).

But, after tests revealed nothing in the non-affected areas, and after the owners requested FDA assistance for determining best practices, and guidance for how to proceed, after that they were shut down.

It was a sloppy job on the government's part, not based on genuinely working with a producer and giving clear guidance, but rather on what seems like some sort of vendetta.

Thanks for the reply. The .gov response does seem heavy handed. I was just imaging the chain of production to see why they would have proceeded the way they did.

I imagined a production chain as follows.
Listeria in make room--->listeria in soft cave---->none in packaging room----->listeria in storefront.

So the contaminated product was in the packaging room at some point, despite no evidence of current contamination. Unless of course they use separate packaging areas for the soft/hard to minimize cross contamination to the lines.

Has the affected party sought outside testing to determine the strain of listeria?

 

[linuxboy]

So the contaminated product was in the packaging room at some point, despite no evidence of current contamination. Unless of course they use separate packaging areas for the soft/hard to minimize cross contamination to the lines.

Not sure what the packing area is like, but I do know after the recall, they spent a ton of money revamping everything, and cleaning/disinfecting like crazy. After that, they self-tested and had negative results from multiple areas and multiple swabs.

All I'm really saying is that I understand there are procedures and administrative rules... But to go to a farm and instead of trying to be a government that provides supporting services to build long-term relationships, they go in with guns drawn. And then don't even follow your own internal procedures for resolving the situation. And ignoring requests for help, choosing an adversarial position. It's just not how public servants should serve the public.

It's a systemic abuse of power and lack of care, too. Like in another case, they go swabbing for pathogens and enter a clean room with their boots on, after walking around in the barn. I mean, really? First you go into an area that may have feces and who knows what, and then you don't change shoes, don't clean up, and walk into a clean room where everyone else is wearing hair nets, lab coats, etc? And then they find something, exact same bacteria as in the barn.

Has the affected party sought outside testing to determine the strain of listeria?

I am not sure. After the in rem seizure, they gave up and closed. It's not cheap, and they felt defeated and gave up. I know they called in a big listeria expert for consultation, who told them it's pointless unless they have a few 100K to spend battling it out.

 

[AreaCode707]

Thanks for the reply. The .gov response does seem heavy handed. I was just imaging the chain of production to see why they would have proceeded the way they did.

I imagined a production chain as follows.
Listeria in make room--->listeria in soft cave---->none in packaging room----->listeria in storefront.

So the contaminated product was in the packaging room at some point, despite no evidence of current contamination. Unless of course they use separate packaging areas for the soft/hard to minimize cross contamination to the lines.

Has the affected party sought outside testing to determine the strain of listeria?

I think the FDA should hire you as an inspector. You'd contribute the logical thought and careful evaluation of process that they were missing.

 

[BoberFett]

All I'm really saying is that I understand there are procedures and administrative rules... But to go to a farm and instead of trying to be a government that provides supporting services to build long-term relationships, they go in with guns drawn. And then don't even follow your own internal procedures for resolving the situation. And ignoring requests for help, choosing an adversarial position. It's just not how public servants should serve the public.

The the biggest problem with government in the US today. It and those who are a part of it no longer see themselves as public servants, there to help the citizens whom they represent. They're the masters. The royalty. The overlords to whom all must bow. The rest of us are expected to be subservient or die.

Sadly, it's only going to get worse.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

The the biggest problem with government in the US today. It and those who are a part of it no longer see themselves as public servants, there to help the citizens whom they represent. They're the masters. The royalty. The overlords to whom all must bow. The rest of us are expected to be subservient or die.

Sadly, it's only going to get worse.

get down on your knees and greatfully lick my boots boy.....if you do a good job next time I won't step in my own shit first.