Replies

Just think of all those poor people that died before the government helped control milk!

I know you put the sarcasm tag afterwords, but the reality is that milk was responsible for 25% of all food-poisoning incidents before pasteurization. Food poisoning can cause permanent disability and even death--it is *not* a trivial matter.

Pathogens that can be found in raw milk include, but are not limited to Brucella, Campylobacter, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, Salmonella, Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, Shigella, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pyogenes, and Yersinia enterocolitica. The most common, Campylobacter, can cause paralysis. The E. coli O157:H7 can cause organ failure. Any of these can kill.

According to recent studies, you are 150 times more likely to become ill from raw milk products than pasteurized milk products.

Those who sell raw milk make all kinds of unsubstantiated claims about it. None of them stand up to scientific scrutiny. For instance, lactose is neither created nor destroyed by heat, so the claims that raw milk is somehow safe to drink by the lactose intolerant have no basis. It's clear why those who sell raw milk make those claims--it's expensive to pasteurize milk and keep up with all of the food safety requirements--making it so much more profitable to make bogus claims about health benefits of raw milk in order to attract customers who may not be scientifically knowledgeable.

There is a reason pasteurization was invented. There is a reason most governments require pasteurization, just as they set other food safety standards. If you want to know what life is like in a place where there are no standards, or standards are not enforced, I suggest doing some research on China or third world countries.

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-hot-topics
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516.htm
or just Google "raw milk hazards" or similar phrase.

That's the disinformation campaign. And it's pretty good at what it does.

People became ill when they used milk from cows kept in unsanitary conditions in cities. Pasteurization was a lot cheaper than cleaning up filthy dairies. Pasteurization and homogenization also gives milk a long shelf life so it can be shipped from dairy conglomerates to stores. Control of food is everything to government.

Pasteurization also alters the chemical structure, makes fats rancid, destroys nutrients and results in the formation of free radicals in the body.

You can buy into the fear tactics and believe that you need government to be your Mommy.

You have a nice, safe day.

I know you put the sarcasm tag afterwords, but the reality is that milk was responsible for 25% of all food-poisoning incidents before pasteurization.

You points are good but sometime problems need to be defined well. You cite a statistic that is not current. Some points to consider is that pasteurization is NOT the only factor. Freshness, Refrigeration, transport, storage, etc were/are also factors. I also drank a lot of fresh natural milk on the farm, but it was always replaced with more fresh milk and the older milk was fed to the livestock. If a current consumer wants a product, let him/her. It may not be right for you but is for some. Living in a large city I would never go the fresh milk route for a variety of reasons. Also, I would never go into the business of fresh milk unless I knew my customers and my financial risk with them.

Also today we have too MANY regulatory govt mechanisms. Plus courts with liability enforcement, etc. And then we also have many non profits looking out for our welfare. Insurance is also a modern day factor and expanse.

My major point is that you and I have our opinion but give a little freedom to those who have other preferences. There is a tough balance between freedom and safety, even we conservatives want to impose our will on others.

You, and other do gooders, miss the point. The point being some people prefer raw milk. The government has no business making people drink stuff they don't want to drink. The solution is to keep government out of it altogether. If you must have a law, then a law that requires dairies to provide a certain percent of their product pasteurized would suffice. Outlawing raw milk altogether is unconstitutional and not part of the governments allowed authority. Why can't both pasteurized and raw milk be sold? If some people are willing to risk the diseases that can possibly come with drinking raw milk that is their business and not yours or the governments.

I am sure the vast majority of people would continue to drink pasteurized milk and the amount of raw milk sold would be very small compared to the processed type.

Once again, it is not the governments job to save me, or anyone, from their own actions.