JUDGE: AMERICANS DON’T HAVE RIGHT TO DRINK COW MILK

Fox News Radio ^ | 10/06/2011 | Todd Starnes

[antidemoncrat]

However, the judge would not rule that the plaintiffs have any Constitutional rights to own a dairy cow, consume milk from their own cow, board a cow at the farm of another farmer, or produce and consume the foods of their choice.

[q_an_a]

this is another CROCK story - a bunch of folks made up a racket - joint ownership in a farm in order to buy milk from themselves, when in fact they are consumers who are trying an end around the law. It may be a stupid law, but this is not about a guy can’t drink the milk his cows produce.

[animal172]

Maybe it’s time we as citizens just said, “no”. Not going to do it. Come get me. put me and put me in jail. Are there enough jails for all of us? Or are we too wimpy to stand up?

[allmendream]

Do I have a “right” to drink whiskey?

Do I have a “right” to drink orange soda?

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Whazza madda? He got something against fresh whole milk? Yummy!

[varyouga]

It all began when the government started controlling what chemicals or plants one could voluntarily and privately ingest. They took an emotional issue to get their foot in the door.

Of course, the next logical step is control of transfats, salt, other fats, raw foods, etc, etc, etc.

Don’t worry comrade, we’re making a healthier and safer world “for the children”.

[Sarajevo]

Are any of those “rights” expressly forbidden?

[familyop]

Granted, there’s not much risk to people, if cows are tested for bangs. But look at the minimum temperature duration and time for pasteurizing milk.

http://www.uac.arizona.edu/VSC443/farmzoodisease/farmzoo03.html

It’s not much, and I don’t see why small dairies selling direct to customers couldn’t do it. Push for that instead of fighting against pasteurization, and compete!

[familyop]

Oops...vaccinated for bangs, and proper sanitary procedures followed. And yes, why not pasteurization for small dairies that want to sell direct to consumers (see low minimum temps and durations)?

http://www.uac.arizona.edu/VSC443/farmzoodisease/farmzoo03.html

[DuncanWaring]

Complement to the No-Berry-Picking-In-England-Story Ping.

[blam]

"Complement to the No-Berry-Picking-In-England-Story Ping. "

Yup.

We'll have to shoot our way out of this government control.

[DannyTN]

I have mixed thoughts on this.

Pro

• we do want the government having some regulation over food.
• We want to know the country of origin so that we can avoid being poisoned by China. 0
• We want the government testing imported food.
• We want the government to be able to trace tainted foods quickly to minimize the people getting sick.
• When the evil Louis Pasteur came up with pasturization he planned to take away our freedoms /sarcasm. Or maybe there is a legitimate scientific reason for the ban on unpasteurized products.
• The article said 10 times as many people got sick on pasteurized milk than unpasteurized? Just 10 times? But there must have been hundreds of thousands more pasteurized milk drinkers than non, so that's statement is an indictment of the safety of unpasteurized milk.
• We do ban foods for other reasons than safety. We ban cannibis, we ban meat from endangered species, we ban sugar from communist countries that we don't like. So I'd have to agree technically with the judge that an unquestionable right to obtain and consume any food is not legitmate.
• Courts are going to have to draw the line somewhere. They can't regulate dairy farms and then have the regulations undermined so easily.
• There is a political remedy to over-regulation which is the ballot box. This doesn't even rate as a compaign issue yet.

  Con

• When Americans are willing to go to such lengths as private contracts and boarding cows to obtain the foods, at the very least a scientific review is in order.
• Unpasteurized milk has been drunk up until the time of Pasteur. The burden should be on the state to prove a significant danger for it to be able to interfere with a tradition that old.
• The FDA seems to have responded to junk science in certain pharmaceutical cases such as Dimetapp and taken drugs off the market when the remaining drugs were clearly more harmful. It appears the FDA can be bought. Which makes independent scientific review an important check on government.

[little jeremiah]

Note my new tagline.

They want us to (a) starve to death, (b) be utterly dependent on them, (c) be so dis-spirited that we’re ready to volunteer for assisted suicide sooner rather than later.

[little jeremiah]

Banning raw milk is freaking insanity. You know how many people get sick and die from undercooked MEAT????? Why not outlaw selling raw meat???

Anyone buying raw milk can boil it and drink it as safely as a baby drinking milk from their mother’s breast.

[little jeremiah]

I assume that regulations governing dairies vary from state to state. I’ve known a number of people around here who keep goats, but can’t sell milk legally, because the regulations are such that unless a person has a big herd than can’t be followed - too expensive. So people with a dozen or less milking animals (or even more than that) can’t possibly legally sell milk.

That’s just not right.

[DannyTN]

"Anyone buying raw milk can boil it and drink it as safely as a baby drinking milk from their mother’s breast."

So are they buying raw milk to pastuerize it themselves? Or are they buying raw milk to drink it raw?

And if they are buying it to drink raw, then what's the real science? Was the hoopla about pasteurization in the 1800's just that, or was it a real improvement in the health of people? Are the claims for raw milk being healthier than pasteurized real or fraudulent?

The FDA statements on raw milk make a compelling case. Are they truthful?

• FDA: The Dangers of Raw Milk
• FDA: Q&A Raw Milk

[little jeremiah]

If people want to drink raw milk, that’s their business. The dangers are highly exaggerated.

How many people die or get sick from meat tainted with e-coli? I don’t know the numbers but it’s much higher than most people think. Or salmonella - it’s in tons of meat.

The war against raw milk is stupid and evil. Human life has risk. So be it.

[familyop]

"So people with a dozen or less milking animals (or even more than that) can’t possibly legally sell milk.

That’s just not right."

Agreed. Proper vaccinating and sanitary procedures are already stringent for producers who have dairy company trucks pick up milk, and those are not very expensive for do-it-yourself-ers. Why not pasteurizing and all for small operations, with the procedure requiring such little heat and short durations? It appears that regulatory tyranny has once again gotten in the way of what the market could have provided (reasonably priced, small scale equipment).

[familyop]

True on the exaggerations. I’ve lived in communities where most people drank raw milk in the past. The dairy farmers did have their cows vaccinated for bangs and followed sanitary procedures (disinfecting nipples before milking, etc.). ...no cases of fevers, etc., that I knew of. Several of the rare dangers, BTW, are same/similar to those of bad water or contaminated meat (fecal contamination, strep, etc.). Meat is not required to be cooked before going to supermarkets, and many restaurants will push virtually raw meat dishes to tables, throwing fits about customer requests for cooking.

We get gobs of regulations against small business starts on the one hand and Malthusian propaganda and medical costs on the other.

[little jeremiah]

All your points are good. It seems that gov regulation of foods and food producers is not really for “safety” but to squelch small producers and favor large ones.

That is evil.