Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk

How can we call ourselves the land of the free when stuff like this happens??

We cant! Plain and simple. Big Agra own the FDA. Fresh milk farmers are competition for the big factory dairy farmers and they will use their influence (ownership) of the FDA to eliminate an rival.

If someone wants to ingest something...isnt it their right??

That whole idea died in 1906 when the US signed the international opium treaty.

so are you saying you are against freedom

NO. Your thinking is 19th century. Raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue it is that simple.

Jack's correct. It could be sold by any farmer for years, until too many people (children) got sick. If you want to get your own cow for yourself, you can do it and nobody will stop you.

and if someone gets sick from this and dies....how is it any of your business? If someone does drugs and dies...how is it any of your business?

Like I said your thinking is all 19th century. What you want is to live on an island that is NOT govern by any country except yourself.

HOW IS IT YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I OR OTHERS DO WITH OUR LIVES WHEN IT AFFECTS US?? NOT YOU!!!

Selling raw milk and people get sick affects me. Producing raw milk for ones own personal consummation is legal.

I think it becomes everyone elses business when people win class action law suits for it later... especially when they then blame the FDA for not protecting them from their own choices.

Today's cure manufacturer becomes tomorrows toxic waste peddler.

.tell me how it affects your freedom?

This has nothing to do with freedom. This is a public health issue.

How about you get sick with say small pox or polio that could affect any number of people. Is it your freedom to go out in public infect other people?

if negligence is proven...then there should be action taken by government...other than that...the government has no place in my personal life.

I love people who sell fire insurance after the fire.

I love liberals...they only want the government out of their personal lives when it comes to the bedroom...other than that

Being reckless is not a virtue.

...they want a gestapo tellilng people what to do with their personal lives.

Godwin's law

Are you telling me Marshall that no one should seek any legal action against a producer who sold them faulty product? Ever? Even if the producer sold them carcinogens that resulted in a disease that caused them to lose their ability to work? Even if the producer sold them products that resulted in their incapacity or death?

You think the only power should go to those who have navigated the open market and let the money do the talking? In short, those with enough money to make sure those they hurt cant talk, and ensure enough positive message and price cutting to bully all competetion out of the market?

I'm just curious how you would stop the monopolies without regulation.

Even if the producer sold them carcinogens that resulted in a disease that caused them to lose their ability to work?

This has already been tried. Remember when people sued the cigarette manufacturers. Guess what? They won, but in the end, the cigarettes are still being manufactured, marketed and sold.

how does it affect you if I do drugs or drink raw milk?? how does it affect your freedom??

You want to have your cake and eat too.

You do drugs and drive and hit me very simple.

Your thinking is just small and very self centered typical right winger.

how does it affect you if I do drugs or drink raw milk?? how does it affect your freedom??

You want to have your cake and eat too.

You do drugs and drive and hit me very simple.

What is his drinking raw milk going to do to you? How will it affect you personally?

I'm sorry Queenie... I'm not looking to discuss specific products or specific law suits as result of faulty advertizing/products...

My main question deals with how do you stop monopoly misrepresentation without regulation?

Marshall, it is apparent that those that are defending our government have never even drank raw milk, nor pure apple cider, nor had pure maple syrup. they have a fear of that which they don't know.

how does it affect you???

Your use of a product that makes you ill that is sold in the public market place affects me.

You seem to think that only you are in this equation that is your lake of understanding.

I think the main point here from Marshall is that it doesnt affect me that he drinks raw milk... on the other hand, the main point Jack is trying to get at is that only works as long as the consequences to the original actions don't affect me after he drinks raw milk...

In other words... Marshall drinks raw milk and dies, his family sues... that now becomes my problem because society has to answer for Marshall's choice to drink raw milk... Judges arent free, and court costs dont fall from the sky... there also has to be some kind of standard to judge if the company that sold the raw milk was in the wrong... who comes up with that?

So I wonder how one would seek to regulate companies that produce bad products (knowingly or unknowingly) without an outside regulation source?

I think it's a massive failure to expect the free market to remain unbiased. The free market is for sale... anyone can buy good press...

NO!!! it is because of the high likelyhood of death and illness. The lawsuit is the AFTER EFFECT.

No Marshall... it isnt just the lawsuit... its the social costs... social costs are more than lawsuits.

If you are willing to drink raw milk or smoke cigarettes or do drugs and are not reliant on the system to help you if you encounter a faulty product, hooray for you.

Me, if I take a bad pill from a batch of tylenol that had something in it that made me sick, I would be asking what happened. I would want to make sure that JnJ was meeting the regulations that they should so they arent making other people sick.

actually all the arguments against the sale of raw milk make no sense.

Raw milk
Milk that has not been pasteurized; drinking it is no longer recommended. The risk of bacteria, including salmonella, in raw milk has prompted the U.S. government to require pasteurization for all milk sold interstate.

http://www.altadenadairy.com/kids/adKidsBarndDictionary.html

actually all the arguments against the sale of raw milk make no sense.

yeah! how dare the government not allow me to poison myself and my children? if I want to swim in radioactive waste I should be able to.

ah the republican mantra, fighting for freedoms you don't really don't and denying you the freedoms you do want.

Ah, the people who arent smart enough to tell the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian...

again jack

if I get sick..how does that affect you...you cannot answer that question...just like if I do drugs...and get sick..how does that affect you??

For example: You work for me and you get sick drinking tainted milk you loose work that cost me.

Your thinking is just way to limited.

yes you should be able to make wrong decisions in your life...if you do not have the right to make bad decisions...you are not free and are a slave.

if you want to harm yourself go to somalia.

the need for regulations is to protect people, not a lot of people would know that milk can be very dangerous.

Ah, the people who arent smart enough to tell the difference between a Republican and a Libertarian.

they are all the same. ever watched to the republican debates? picking the difference among them is like going to a psychological institution and picking out the person that's the craziest. pointless really.

require pasteurization for all milk sold interstate

SOLD is the operative word here. The FDA can't control milk that is given across the state. But it is the exchange of money, the COMMERCE that brings in the regulations.

The Pennsylvania Department of Health announced Friday that the two county residents were among 38 confirmed cases of campylobacter infections linked to milk produced by Family Cow in Chambersburg.

The bacterial infection affects the intestinal tract and can sometimes spread to the bloodstream and organs. Symptoms include stomach cramps, diarrhea and vomiting.

Read more: http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/580914_State--Raw-milk-sickens-2-in-Lancaster-County.html#ixzz1mNtdcn8E

Seems PA has more than just a government problem...

if I eat battery acid...and die from it...should we make that illegal too by your reasoning because there might be a lawsuit??

Ah, but the battery maker slapped a sticker on the product that says "using this product for anything other than it's intended use..." covers them. What use is raw milk, other than for consumption. Now you don't agree with rules that cover the sale of raw milk. Great. Go out and find enough people that agree with you and pressure your representatives to remove those laws, instead of saying things like -

government should not be in the business of regulation of business.

Government has been in the business of regulating businesses since it's inception. I can't possibly be an expert in contract law, economics, medicine, veterinary science (I have a dog too), education, media, and any number of things business may use to separate me from my money. Some of those things I need to survive.

Supporting efforts to remove big money from politics. If we can do that it will go a long way into reducing anti-competitive regulations.

rachel,

I don't really have a problem with people buying unpasteurized milk, but quite frankly, in the case of farmers that want to sell it, it is up to them to prove that it is not a hazard, it isn't up to the FDA to prove it isn't. The issue with the state line is something that would have been resolved with the legislation that was held up because the republicans wanted to protect the nation wide plants that sold contaminated peanut butter nationwide with salmonella and wanted all regulations to be gutted.

Unless reasonable restrictions are agreed upon, this shouldn't be opened up.

Now as far as 38 cases, that needs to really be quantified by an out of how many figure. A figure of 38 out of 100,000 is a very different figure than 38 out of 1,500.

I don't either, Jonathan. In NM there are four farms that do sell it and if I weren't lactose intolerant, I'd drink it. I grew up drinking it at my grandparents in NY State.

It's more a matter of our litigious society.

In the link, it says the store that sold the milk sells about 25 gallons of it a week. Don't think that even covers 1,500.

HOW IS IT YOUR BUSINESS WHAT I OR OTHERS DO WITH OUR LIVES WHEN IT AFFECTS US?? NOT YOU!!!

I agree. Which is why gay marriage, abortion and birth control should be nobody else's business.

As for the milk, well, I'm not sure if it's so much the ingestion as it is the SELLING that is the problem.

the PA farm who had illnesses reported has now passed final inspection and is again selling whole milk, which is what we called it years ago.

In this case, the farmer delivered it to a gov't provocateur in Baltimore, Md. He is voluntarily shutting down his dairy operations.

In Ohio, Amish have had a few skirmishes with state officials over the past 65 years. The first was mechanical refrigeration of milk, perhaps 1955 to 1958. About a year or two later, their education through 8th grade was attacked.

Today, they move to Indiana, Iowa and Michigan because their land is too valuable for farming. The hippie-dippies from Cleveland come on down and pay big dollars for a site for their McMansions.

There are other seeds today regarding the shortage of life saving medicines to treat leukemia in USA. Maybe FDA can investigate and resolve that one quickly. Two years in court and about 1,500 or more would die.

@ Marshall James

yes you should be able to make wrong decisions in your life...if you do not have the right to make bad decisions...you are not free and are a slave.

As has been pointed out to you several times, it's perfectly legal for you to drink raw milk... if you want to make that decision, feel free. However, it's not legal to sell it to others, especially across state lines.

It's no different than toys with lead paint. If you want to make and play with toys that contain lead paint, have a blast. But, when you start distributing those toys to others, it becomes a public health issue.

There's nothing about this article or it's contents which suggest that ANYONE is going to be stopped from consuming raw milk. But, again, when one starts distributing that raw milk to others, it's no longer about an "individual's" rights because that individual has willfully chosen to engage in the public sector.

Marshall James (partial)

and exactly the reason why government should not be in the business of regulation of business.

Typical anarchist type answer, you don't want government in the business of protecting people from unsavory business people,

WHAT A DUMB STATEMENT.

It's important for people to live their daily lives knowing that the products they consume are more or less safe. If an Amish farmer is allowed to sell unregulated milk, then where do we draw the line? What's to stop farmers from selling diseased cow meat, or ground up roadkill? We have standards for a reason, and those need to be strictly enforced and evenly applied to keep everyone safe, even if a few unedcuated hippies think bacteria ridden milk is better for them.

@ Marshall James

if you know the milk is "unregulated" than what is the problem??? how does it violate your rights??

please answer the question.

The point is that if EVERYTHING was unregulated (as you've advocated for), then that's the ONLY choice people would have. They'd have no idea what they were putting in their bodies.

So selling MILK with wallboard ingredients included is fine with you ?

Selling automobiles with defective parts is fine with you ?

Selling meat with red sawdust to increase weight is fine with you ?

Selling medicine with defective ingredients is fine with you ?

Would you like a few thousand other items listed ??

Just like protecting us from enemy attack, government protecting us from crooks is a valid reason for government intervention.

STOP with the Ron Paul / Anarchist foolishness.

government should be for the protection of individual rights..not morality. preventing the sale of natural foods that serves corporation interests is not the protection of rights...it is the violation of them.

safety of the people is morality?

there is a person who's business is nothing but an outhouse and they sell chocolate hotdogs, care to buy one?

probably not and hence the importance of government regulation.

History

Humans consumed raw milk exclusively prior to the industrial revolution and the invention of the pasteurization process in 1864. During the industrial revolution large populations congregated into urban areas detached from the agricultural lifestyle. Up until that point, individuals and families owned their own goats, cows, and other livestock and milked them on a daily basis.

Pasteurization was first used in the United States in the 1890s after the discovery of germ theory to control the hazards of highly contagious bacterial diseases including bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis that was thought to be easily transmitted to humans through the drinking of raw milk. Initially after the scientific discovery of bacteria, no product testing was available to determine if a farmer's milk was safe or infected, so all milk was treated as potentially contagious. After the first test was developed, some farmers actively worked to prevent their infected animals from being killed and removed from food production, or would falsify the test results so that their animals would appear to be free of infection.

When it was first used, pasteurization was thought to make raw milk from any source safer to consume. More recently, farm sanitation has greatly improved and effective testing has been developed for bovine tuberculosis and other diseases, making other approaches to ensuring safety of milk more feasible; however, pasteurization continues to be widely used to prevent infected milk from entering the food supply. The recognition of many potentially deadly pathogens, such as E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, and Salmonella, and their presence in milk products has led to the continuation of pasteurization. The Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and other health agencies of the United States strongly recommend that the public do not consume raw milk or raw milk products. Young children, the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to infections originating in raw milk.

Recent advances in the analysis of milk-borne diseases have enabled scientists to track the DNA of the infectious bacteria to the cows on the farms that supplied the raw milk^.

^{FROM WIKIPEDIA}

The FDA won its two-year fight to shut down an Amish farmer who was selling fresh raw milk to eager consumers in the Washington, D.C., region after a judge this month banned Daniel Allgyer from selling his milk across state lines and he told his customers he would shut down his farm altogether.

GOOD!!! Such sales are against the law. Such regulation is definitely within the power of the federal government, there is a rational basis for such regulation against the sale of raw milk, and the Amish are properly subject to neutral laws of general applicability.

if you know the milk is "unregulated" than what is the problem???

Um, you are assuming that everyone would know such a thing. That is flawed thinking.

What is his drinking raw milk going to do to you? How will it affect you personally?

When my neighbor drinks raw milk and gets tuberculosis, it becomes everyone's personal effect.

Early last century milk products caused approximately 25% of outbreaks due to food or water in the United States. Today, dairy products cause less than 1% of foodborne outbreaks. Outbreaks and illnesses from milk still occur in the US because healthy dairy animals such as cattle and goats may carry foodborne pathogens such as Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella. In developing countries, systemic diseases like brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis cause life-threatening disease in both humans and animals.

The FDA, doing a great job of trying to keep America safe.

The hippie-dippies from Cleveland come on down and pay big dollars for a site for their McMansions.

How socially backward does one have to be to consider a Cleveland suburbanite the epitome of urban chic?

Lordy, land'o'mighty! Here come dem Clevelanders, with their fancy-schmacy minivans and pick'em'up trucks.

Too funny.

Buckeye Voter

The hippie-dippies from Cleveland come on down and pay big dollars for a site for their McMansions.

How socially backward does one have to be to consider a Cleveland suburbanite the epitome of urban chic?

Lordy, land'o'mighty! Here come dem Clevelanders, with their fancy-schmacy minivans and pick'em'up trucks.

Too funny.

Dude, are you awake or did we miss something ????????????

as long as they know that sawdust is included in it...yes..that is freedom of choice.

so how d you make sure the public is informed and informed in a way that can the public can easily access it and find it? also who's going to pay for the lawyers to fight out in court with companies that find clever ways of hiding information?

you do realize your path of deregulation would actually create more regulation right?

Marshall James

I see by your comment, you are just too far out to converse with, lost cause.

Bye, Bye.

I'm sure it was fairly easy for the government to come to this decision on the heels of these cases of illness caused by raw milk ingestion... http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-news/story/maryland-and-pennsylvania-report-cases-of-campylobacter-infection-associate/

The Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and other health agencies of the United States strongly recommend that the public do not consume raw milk or raw milk products.[3] Young children, the elderly, people with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are particularly susceptible to infections originating in raw milk.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk

This is all that I need to know. Well, I do want to know whether infections originating in raw milk are contagious. And, the timeline for considering raw milk to be 'fresh'. If all of the caveats are known to consumers who purchase the product AND that product causes no harm to the rest of us, then enjoy if that's what you like.

OKaaay, this is serious, from the link @1.62, Z1P2:

Meredith Cohn with The Baltimore Sun reported that six people were infected with Campylobacter by raw milk from the Family Cow dairy store in Chambersburg, Pa., including three in Maryland, according to the state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. The bacteria causes diarrhea, nausea and vomiting and can progress into a more serious bloodstream infection, usually two to five days after exposure. The state agency and the health department in Pennsylvania are advising consumers to discard any product bought from this farm since Jan. 1.

This is why FDA is and should be concerned about 'fresh' raw milk.

The title to the seeded article would have been a tad less incendiary if it used "raw milk" instead of "fresh milk" in the article title. Hmm, I wonder why "fresh" instead of "raw"?

fraud is already illegal....just enforce current laws.

you don't seem to understand but there needs to be an organization that determines what is fraud and what isn't.

also not providing information isn't fraud because fraud would be providing false information.

Yep, the Pimps in the GOP, sold their services to Big Ag (Big Farma) and the Monsantoites, last year with their so called Food Protection Act. The government can officially starve the masses, no buying from the little guy, road-side stands, even can keep you from eating your own garden veggies and eating your bug chasing chickens. The GOP and the Tealiban, want to control your eating and bedroom habits, but give Big Farma, Big Pharma, and the Banksters the right to rape your food basket or wallet anytime, anywhere. Keep them in POWER, so they can control you, you miserable little 99er.

The DEA has been empowered to run amok very similarly to this.

Truth be told, if his customers want it, they can go get it, he just can't sell it across state lines.

lmao..it is misrepresentation of a product....fraud is determined....as that saying goes....

my that logic someone can buy an iphone, confuse it with a model airplane, try and make it fly and then sue apple for not telling them that the phone is not a model airplane.

actually fraud is a DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION. In order to prove fraud you have prove two things:

1) That there was a lie (so excluding information is not a condition of fraud, unless there is a legal requirement to include such information).

2) that the misrepresentation was deliberate, that there was intent.

Proving both of these is EXTREMELY difficult, having been in court once to prove that someone defrauded me. I proved #1, but could not prove #2.

Marshall James

would you like a Chocolate Hot Dog?

(1.65)

and it has no right preventing people from offering goods to the public as long as fraud is not involved.

If it involves offering goods to the public across state lines (as this was) they certainly do.

----------

FoolsGladly

MJ,

I dont know why you even bother. You are attempting to talk to people who are completely against personal freedom. They are so afraid that they would have no one to blame but themselves if they make the wrong decision, that they would rather have a Nanny telling them what to do and a Big Brother watching over their every move to make sure they do it. They are the mindless drones the government has been training them to be. They cant help it. Anyone who is for personal freedom is the enemy because they cant fathom someone having free will.

@Marshall James -

the government has no right to tell me what I can or cant do in my personal life...and it has no right preventing people from offering goods to the public as long as fraud is not involved.

FALSE!!! The US Constitution gives the federal government VERY BROAD (although not unlimited) powers to make laws and regulations that dictate what you can and cannot do in this country. The states you live or travel in each have state constitutions which give those states very broad powers to make laws and regulations that dictate what you can and cannot do in those states. Same with the powers of the local communities.

Relatively speaking, do we have a significant amount of freedom in this country? YES, compared to many other countries.

Do we have the freedom to do what we want, and the government has no power to tell us what we can and can't do in our personal lives? NO!!! That has never been true, and never will be true.

The reason for the US Constitution and the state constitutions is that we (or rather, our ancestors) have made a legal and social compact (or, today, we have been born into a country that operates under a legal and social compact) to give up a significant amount of individual sovereignty (and state sovereignty) to the federal government (which is run by people who we elect to represent us) to act for our common defense and general welfare, including balancing the rights of the people against the powers of the government, and balancing the rights of people against each other (e.g., the government balances the right of one person to pollute against the right of another person to not be subject to pollution; the government balances the right of one person to sell a product that potentially may have a harmful effect/defect against the right of another person to not be harmed by that product; etc.)

northern girl

Would you like a Chocolate Hot Dog?

after a couple of cases..where a company is brought up on fraud charges..if they were able to get out of them...the word would be viral via the internet..and people would stop using that company and they would go out of business...instead of now being protected by government and regulations.

what kind of fantasy world do you live in?

@Marshall James -

after a couple of cases..where a company is brought up on fraud charges..if they were able to get out of them...the word would be viral via the internet..and people would stop using that company and they would go out of business...instead of now being protected by government and regulations.

The federal government has the power to act BEFORE the company subjects a person to a risk of harm. The federal government does NOT have to wait until after the harm is done in order for the federal government to act.

After I lost the case, any comments by me relating to that company, depending on how I disseminate such comments, would 'legally' be met with slander and/or libel accusations, and I would end up being the one paying damages.

I lost the case, even though they were guilty as hell, because I couldn't prove intent on the part of the company. I could prove it on the part of the employee of the company, but because that wasn't an executive, they attributed it to a rogue employee, and therefore wasn't an attempt by the company to defraud me.

Seriously, you seem to have a very simplistic view of the legal system.

its called the libertarian playground of the internet.

libertarians do not have any grounding in reality.

"I can't believe in 2012 the federal government is raiding Amish farmers at gunpoint all over a basic human right to eat natural food,"

Just one more example of a tyrannical government, trying to regulate everything in our daily lives. They seem to want us to eat only things that are pasteurized, processed, or genetically modified. It is no wonder so many people are getting sick. We are putting all kinds of nasty chemicals into our bodies.

When I was a teenager, I used to work at a dairy down the street to help out the little old lady that ran it by herself. I used to bring home fresh milk. It was the best milk I've ever drank in my life. The FDA is full of @!$%#.

Marshall James

happytoseeya

and you have that right to not purchase it...that is freedom...but you should be able to purchase it legally without any restrictions....that also would be freedom.

it doesnt hurt you if I do drugs or drink raw milk...or not wear a seatbelt.

Nope,it may not hurt, but it certainly can kill and the killing part has collateral damage.

@Marshall James -

ifeelsocheapanddirty

and that is tyranny my friend...because if you are basing your laws and police actions based on what ifs...the possibilities are endless.

WRONG!!! It is NOT tyranny at all. The United States, operating under the US Constitution, is a civilized society that recognizes that people should have a lot of freedom, but not unbridled freedom, and such freedom is subject to regulation by the federal government (and state and local governments), wherein the federal government has very broad powers to regulate people in this country, but where the right is a fundamental right (e.g., free speech, marriage, equal protection under the law, etc.), the powers of the government to regulate that fundamental right can be more restricted and/or the regulation of such fundamental right has to be more highly scrutinized to ensure that the federal government (or state or local government) is acting within its powers under the US Constitution.

if I died....please tell me how that would violate your rights.

ok ill explain it again once and for all to all libertarians:

it isn't about you.

if I died....please tell me how that would violate your rights.

Only if you died next to my property, and I didn't find out until after you got ripe, and the wind changed direction...

:-)

I dont know why you even bother. You are attempting to talk to people who are completely against personal freedom

Silly and inaccurate.

As I recall, the Federal Government is charged with regulating inter-state commerce, and that is exactly the scenario here. And nothing is stopping people from buying the milk, THEY ARE FREE TO DO SO, they just have to go TO HIM to do it. This is a question of it being transported across state lines.

We are putting all kinds of nasty chemicals into our bodies.

Are you familiar with the diseases available from drinking unpasteurized milk?

if I died....please tell me how that would violate your rights.

If you did so after getting drunk and driving into a family of 6, that family of 6 might have an issue with how you died. Context matters.

ok then...my neighbor....the guy living two miles from you....the guy on the next block..please tell me how someone purchasing a good ...knowing it is risky...then dying from it....violates your rights.

seriously where is this fantasy world you live in?

leaving it up to businesses to inform that their products are problematic, poisonous and dangerous isn't going to happen.

I love it when right wingers freak out over nothing.

@ infrared

its very easy to prove fraud....we have just had a government that has refused to protect individuals because special interest groups pay them off.

But that's REGULATION, and you've said the Government has no business being involved in such a venture.

How can you claim Government shouldn't be regulating business, but then say that Government should be holding companies accountable for misrepresentation? Who's going to define "misrepresentation"? Who's going to monitor if "misrepresentation" has occurred? Who do consumers report "misrepresentation" to? Who goes about prosecuting or otherwise penalizing companies for "misrepresentation"? The fact that you acknowledged that the Government should be protecting people from companies is a direct admission that Government SHOULD be regulating business.

That's the glaring fallacy with today's Libertarian approach; it's premised upon a foundational structure which was created by all of the things Libertarians say we don't need.

do we sell raw meat???? raw eggs???

how do you compare the two? you cook eggs and meat you do not cook milk

you didnt answer the question....didnt think you would be able to...as those who value oppression can never logically argue against those who value freedom.

i did answer it by telling you it isn't realistic. it is as ridiculous as asking what you do when pink polka dot elephants start flying in the sky.

And without laws/regulations, you have no crime to commit, therefore you have anarchy.

And in this particular case, a crime was committed, he sold raw milk across state lines against FDA regulations.

@ Marshall James

government should only get invovled once a crime has been committed....getting involved before that is just plain corruption and only serves the interests of the rich corporations.

Jonathan just said it well, but I'll restate:

How can a crime be committed without first having laws and regulations to abide by? So, again, who determines those laws and regulations? This is a PERFECT example of what I just stated: "That's the glaring fallacy with today's Libertarian approach; it's premised upon a foundational structure which was created by all of the things Libertarians say we don't neeed". You say we don't need Government regulating business, but base it on the fact that Government has already established laws to regulate business.

And yes, a crime was committed here... multiple times, before Government got involved.

It's simple.

They keep the farm open. You get sick. You sue the federal government for NOT shutting down the milk farm.

They shut down the milk farm, you get pissed you can't ingest what you want.

So be a fool then.

Go milk your own cow and drink up.

JACK DEATH

so are you saying you are against freedom

NO. Your thinking is 19th century. Raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue it is that simple.

Riiight, @!$%# the FDA does approve have no ill effects whatsoever. Hell we have meds that the FDA put their stamp on that can cause @!$%#ing cancer and you're against raw milk, IMO your priorities are way out of alignment.

fred evil

do we sell raw meat???? raw eggs???

enough said.

is it illegal to transport meat or eggs across state lines??

Big difference between milk and raw meat, making milk safe to drink (pasteurization) requires large, expensive equipment, otherwise you 'break' the milk. And NO, we do NOT sell raw eggs, they are pasteurized as well, though they still have the capacity to make you sick (thus the ability to eat 'over easy' eggs in relative safety).

And again, INTERSTATE commerce is the province of the federal government per the CONSTITUTION: the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

On this one Don Quixote, the Windmill, she tilts BACK.

you're against raw milk,

WTF are you talking about?

@ Jack Death

WTF are you talking about?

It's obvous Jack..... you're a raw milk bigot! Always trying to oppress the raw milk..... and why, because it's WHITE!? I wonder, would you be such a raw milk hater if it was chocolate raw milk???

:-)

What part of your posts didn't you understand Jack?

Was not aware of that, I appreciate the info Marshall, but the fact stands that the customers could STILL go to him and pick it up, and there would be no problems.

If he wanted to deliver it, it was up to him to challenge the law and demonstrate it was unduly burdensome, he chose not to do that, but to flaunt the law instead.

What part of your posts didn't you understand Jack?

Not my posts. Where did I say I did not like raw milk? I said

"Raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue it is that simple."

ok ill explain it again once and for all to all libertarians:

Marshall James does not speak for all libertarians, keep that in mind. We are a diverse party, the only thing that unifies us is that we fall on the anarchy side of the authoritarian/anarchy scale. That also doesn't mean we are all for full anarchy either, many of us are moderates in that we simply think the government shouldn't involve itself in who we screw or marry, or what we smoke and should only get involved in wars of a strictly defensive nature.

And NO, we do NOT sell raw eggs, they are pasteurized as well

We wash eggs, we do not pasteurize them as far as I'm aware of. I certainly don't pasteurize mine, but I do wash them. Of course I also don't sell mine, but even the "how do they do it" type shows that show egg production facilities haven't shown them being pasteurized, just washed.

fred

wrong

http://www.motherearthnews.com/ask-our-experts/pasteurize-raw-milk-at-home.aspx

Let's not pretend that boiling milk in a pot on a stove is the same level of pasteurization as that which is recommended for optimal safety:

HTST pasteurization processes must be designed so that the milk is heated evenly, and no part of the milk is subject to a shorter time or a lower temperature.

Heating milk in a pot certainly doesn't meet those standards........

Raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue it is that simple.

and so does the BPH mass dairy producers use to inject in the cows that cause cancer... what's your point...

and so does the BPH mass dairy producers use to inject in the cows that cause cancer... what's your point...

Mixing apples and oranges.

Mixing apples and oranges.

more likes mixing apples with tin cans.

The problem was not fresh milk. It was selling RAW milk.

Businesses are obligated to meet certain standards for selling products under specific conditions, like across state lines.

China, for instance, sold products with lead levels that were too high, and other products where the protein content was artificially inflated with melamine.

We have the standards to protect two concerns : the consumer's health and the confidence in the industry.

If company A is a serious competitor to company B, then a huge health scandal killing hundreds of people by company B would likely also cripple company A. Company A would, in fact, have no legal standing to even bring claims against company B.

Now, as for how it affects ME if you get sick. If YOU get norovirus, for example, or campylobacter, then you can easily pass it on to me. And that's even if I didn't drink the "fresh" milk nor any derived products.

You become a continual PUBLIC health-hazard by your participation.

The potential risks aren't bourne by you alone, in such a case, as the diseases are almost always infectious.

if the product were that dangerous (such as lead paint) then it should be banned altogether. Poison is poison after all, but if its safe to sell to me in Philly, why is it not safe to sell in DC? And don't tell me state's rights because the feds have more than crossed that barrier for health reasons on the past.

dig,

because selling raw milk locally is considered to be low enough risk to be acceptable, but selling it across state lines (and remember, you allow it to be sold across one state line, you have to allow it to be sold across many state lines too) is where the risk gets trickier because of the distances and timelines.

And in this case, the farmer wasn't just crossing ONE state line, he was crossing TWO state lines, and the first state actually has laws that make RAW milk sales illegal. Depending on the wording of the state laws, having that milk off the 'farm' may itself be illegal in Maryland.

Again, he is allowed to sell that milk in PA, but he chooses not to. That is his choice, but the regulations don't prohibit the sale of raw milk, but only the sale of raw milk across state lines.

That is CLEARLY in the domain of the federal government and the FDA.

across state lines is clearly in their domain.

and they clearly have authority to require a warning label.

and that is all.

so there.

no, clearly in their domain means that they have the right to also ban said sales if there is evidence that it is a health hazard. If you honestly think there is no health hazard, then PROVE IT TO THE FDA.

Their documentation gives ample evidence that it is a health hazard (I am sure they would prefer to just ban it outright but they can't), and until that changes, the FDA is WELL within their rights to ban it.

obviously we have both exhausted our arguments.

you say they can ban anything they deem a hazard

and I say they can't, they can just offer proper warnings.

for the moment, your side wins.

Marshall

And NO government should not be there to protect individual rights, but SOCIETY'S RIGHTS, It is the constitution that is there to LIMIT the governments ability to run roughshod over individual rights, hence you have a CHECK AND BALANCE.

Marshall,

I've always been a libertarian. Why else would I be so critical of both parties whenever they support a strongly authoritarian position?

Marshall James, you buying raw milk and maybe dying from it doesn't affect any of us. Go right ahead. I'm not worried about you. I'm worried about my shildren, or wife or family and friends who buys the raw milk and maybe die from drinking it. I strongly doubt they'd want to drink something that might kill them.

It is for them that I want the FDA to shut down a farm like this.

spox,

only they didn't shut the farm down, the farmer shut it down because he didn't want to follow the law in terms of interstate sales (they are not allowed).

Personally I think he was just trying to make more money because Washington DC doesn't have any farms so there is noone selling there, and PA has tons of farmers selling it.

Raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue

I grew up with raw milk. I don't get sick and have no allergies. People get sick for numerous reasons, one of which is living in too sterile an environment. The immune system doesn't get to fully develop. All the chemical additives and preservatives in processed food and the radiation required for fruits and vegetables (which destroys vital nutrients as well as natural cancer fighting properties) are a larger problem than fresh milk. Raw milk stored properly from clean, healthy cows poses minimal risk.

Just another way for government to take over and control the Amish now.

Michigan woman faces jail for growing vegetables in her front yard ...

foodfreedom.wordpress.com/.../michigan-woman-faces-jail-for-grow...

Jul 9, 2011 – A woman who put a vegetable garden in her front yard has been charged ... South American or African that they can't grow food on their own property… .... How much sun she need to grow them tomatoes eh? gurl let me tell ...

LoveMyPlanet, the pathogens in contaminated raw milk would make anyone sick. Your premise is that natural immunities protect you. Bogus argument, what about things like AIDS/HIV? Even with a wonderful immune function, you'll still get sick. Campylob, still sick. Cholera, still sick. Get it?

People get sick for one reason, infection. There are various causes of injury, like trauma. But sick, that's infection. It happens when sufficient pathogens attack your system.

Then you assert "Raw milk stored properly from clean, healthy cows poses minimal risk."

That is accurate. Too bad it's irrelevant. Because proper storage often fails. Healthy cows aren't the only one's from which the milk is collected. Clean conditions are not always present.

Are you saying that we should demand farmers clean their milk collection facilities? Are you saying that we should demand that storage criteria be mandated? Are you saying that we shouldn't allow sick cows to give milk?

See the problem? You can't have one level of standards and pretend it's reasonable without the rest of them.

this is one of the most strangest arguments i ever read, seriously what are the benefits of raw milk? you get sick, there are plenty of vitamins in pasteurized milk and there are plenty of options to eat healthy and not have to subject yourself to bacteria. this is about freedom? freedom to be sick? what kind of freedom is that?

how about freedom from having to worry about hospital bills? promoting a product that can make people sick but wait we can't offer healthcare coverage for all.

i don't follow any of these arguments. ask anyone if they prefer to be healthy or sick and they will ask you if you are a deranged lunatic. there are a lot of needs for freedoms that do matter.

Chirmly,

the pathogens in contaminated raw milk would make anyone sick. Your premise is that natural immunities protect you.

You're attributing an argument to me that I didn't make. The comment I quoted said that "raw milk causes a lot of illness and is a health issue", which it doesn't and really isn't. It has more benefits than not.

AIDS/HIV?...Campylob, still sick. Cholera, still sick.

That's the bogus argument!

Many things cause the onset of illness, not just "one reason, infection". Poor diet, stress, lack of rest, chemical additives, environmental hazards (chemical cleaning products included), etc. All work to compromise and/or disable the immune system and are far greater "health issues" than raw milk. These things enable pathogens (bacteria, viruses, protozoa, fungi among others) to take hold where, if those conditions were not present, they likely could not. And yes, a healthy, fully developed (not stunted) immune system will protect you from all but the most virulent pathogens or at the very least reduce the length of time the acute stage is felt (or keep the "illness" at the prodromal stage…the stage where you feel a vague malaise and which I have occasionally felt but which doesn't progress). That's what your immune system is there for.

See the problem?

No, I don't. Just a tiny little bit of research could inform a person the condition of the product(s) they buy. That includes the condition of the dairy (or single cow) from which they purchase their product(s). Being an informed customer vs. a mindless consumer is not something to avoid. In fact, it's recommended.

From the FDA:

1. Is it safe to consume raw milk?

No. FDA and other health agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics agree that raw milk is unsafe because it can contain disease-causing pathogens, including:

* Enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus
* Campylobacter jejuni
* Salmonella species
* E. coli
* Listeria monocytogenes
* Mycobacterium tuberculosis
* Mycobacterium bovis
* Brucella species
* Coxiella Burnetii
* Yersinia enterocolitica

Illnesses caused by these bacteria can be especially problematic for infants, young children, the elderly, and the immunocompromised. One complication that can arise as a result of infection with E. coli O157:H7 is hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which can cause acute renal failure, especially in the very young or the elderly.

2. Have any illnesses or deaths been caused by consuming raw milk products?

Based on CDC data, literature, and state and local reports, FDA compiled a list of outbreaks that occurred in the U.S. from 1987 to September 2010. During the 27-year period, there were at least 133 outbreaks due to the consumption of raw milk and raw milk products. These outbreaks caused 2,659 cases of illnesses, 269 hospitalizations, 3 deaths, 6 stillbirths and 2 miscarriages. Because not all cases of foodborne illness are recognized and reported, the actual number of illnesses associated with raw milk likely is greater.

3. What are some of the symptoms of illnesses that can be caused by consuming raw milk?

Symptoms of illness caused by consuming raw milk include: vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, headache, and body ache. Most healthy people will recover from illness caused by harmful bacteria in raw milk - or in foods made with raw milk - within a short period of time, however, some individuals can develop symptoms that are chronic, severe, or even life threatening.

If you or someone you know becomes ill after consuming raw milk - or, if you are pregnant and think you could have consumed contaminated raw milk or cheese made from raw milk - see a doctor or healthcare provider immediately.

4. Are there any benefits to drinking raw milk?

No. As a science-based regulatory agency, the FDA looks to the scientific literature for information on benefits and risks associated with raw milk. While the perceived nutritional and health benefits of raw milk consumption have not been scientifically substantiated, the health risks are clear. Please see http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product-SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ConsumerInformationAboutMilkSafety/ucm247991.htm1 for more information.

Raw milk doesn't have many benefits.

Let's look -- vitamin C is partly "destroyed", right? Umm.. ok, who cares, it isn't even 1-2 percent of the RDA in raw milk (see www.raw-milk-facts.com/what_is_in_raw_milk.html ).

Iodine actually is destroyed too, 25% in fact during the process. Is it significant? Umm.. No. You get plenty of iodine from either (more than the RDA) with a large glass or two. That 25 percent isn't making a difference.

Calcium? One cup, 300 milligrams raw or pasteurized. Same amount, same kind in raw and pasteurized.

Ok, what about them bugs : lactic acid bacilli. Sure, yeah, the pasteurization does kill them. And they could be good probiotics. But you'd have to have a raw milk-enema to get the benefits. The reason is the acid of the stomach kills almost all probiotics. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probiotic#Side_effects for "Probiotics taken orally can be destroyed by the acidic conditions of the stomach."

So, what are those actual benefits again for raw-milk?

'That whole idea died in 1906 when the US signed the international opium treaty.' Not much parallel between foodstuffs which have been consumed in this country for centuries, and an opiate which which was used to addict several generations of Chinese, to enrich the Brits...

The FDA does not reguate tobacco which kills hundreds of thousands of peope every year. It is more dangerous for people who don't smoke to be around a smoker, like the little kids who have smoker parents and is linked to numerous diseases which children should not be getting. So, by the numbers I would say about 30 people would be affected by a small local amish dairy product compared to millions of people affected by tobacco- which is a drug yet is not regulated by fda. Tobacco contains carcinogens and poisons like cyanide; in it's pure form- an extremely small amount will kill a person just from contact.

Now, what is wrong with this picture. It seems like the FDA is more interested in having control over who gets to sell products rather than what is being sold(safe products). This is not free market capitalism since there are disparities in the equality of who gets to sell 'unsafe' products.

The parallel between food and drugs is the administration, btw. If you hadn't already figured it out, FDA stands for food and drug administration- it is there job to make sure all food and DRUGS are safe- but they do not regulate tobacco therefore they are an illegitimate organization.

the FDA is more interested in having control over who gets to sell products rather than what is being sold(safe products).

Money talks. Huge tobacco plantation owners have it. Small dairy farmers dont.

Finally, the bottom of the seed.....

People on here saying "So what if I want to drink raw milk, why should that bother you?"

Well how does that effect me???

You buy your raw milk from a local dairy, maybe it's safe to drink or maybe this time it's contaminated with one of these:

Infectious Microbes Found in Cow’s Milk

• Bacillus cereus: These bacteria produce a toxin that can cause diarrhea and another that causes vomiting. Bacillus cereus spores are heat-resistant and may survive pasteurization. There have even been very rare cases linked to dried milk and dried infant formula.
• Brucella: Brucella is a bacterial microbe that is found in unpasteurized dairy products. Brucellainfection, or Brucellosis, has also been called “Undulant Fever” because of the regular recurrence of fever associated with the disease.
• Campylobacter jejuni: Campylobacter jejuniis the most common bacteria to cause diarrheal disease in the U.S. and is found in raw milk and poultry. It has an increased chance of causing disease when consumed in milk, because the basic pH of milk neutralizes the acidity of the stomach.
• Coxiella burnetii: Coxiella infects a variety of animals, including livestock and pets. The microbe can be found in cow’s milk and is resistant to heat and drying. Infection by Coxiella results in Q fever, a high fever that may last up to 2 weeks.
• E. coli O157:H7: This particular strain of E. coli has been associated with a number of food-borne outbreaks and is the cause of bloody diarrhea. Frequently associated with dairy cattle, microbial contamination of raw milk and soft cheeses can result in disease.
• Listeria monocytogenes: Listeria is a common bacterial pathogen that is found in soft cheeses and unpasteurized milk. It can even survive below freezing temperatures and can therefore withstand refrigeration. It is particularly dangerous to individuals who have weakened immune systems, including pregnant women, AIDS patients, and the very young and very old.
• Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis: This strain of mycobacteria can withstand pasteurization and has been associated with the development of Crohn’s disease, also known as inflammatory bowel syndrome. However, whether or not these bacteria can actually infect humans remains controversial.
• Mycobacterium tuberculosis: The cause of “consumption,” a horrific wasting disease that first affects the lungs, Mycobacterium bovisis associated with consumption of raw milk and was one of the most common contaminants prior to the practice of pasteurization. M. bovis causes tuberculosis in cows and can be passed to humans via unpasteurized cow's milk, causing a disease that is very similar to M. tuberculosis.
• Salmonella: Salmonella contamination of raw milk and milk products has been the source of several outbreaks in recent years. Symptoms include diarrhea and high fever.
• Staphylococcus aureus: Staph aureus produces a toxin that causes explosive vomiting. The disease may be considered a consequence of actual food poisoning from simply consuming the toxin, rather than from an actual infection.
• Yersinia enterocolitica: Associated with raw milk and ice cream, among other foods, contamination is believed to be a consequence of a breakdown in sanitization and sterilization techniques at dairy processing facilities.

http://infectiousdiseases.about.com/od/g/a/milkborne.htm

And you get sick but still go to work and spread the germs to your fellow co-workers (and not all of these can be spread by respiratory means, but some can) Or you have family members or neighbors over and they drink the raw milk and get very sick or die.

Well, your thinking that won't happen, because that small time farmer would take precautions..... yeah right.

And by the way if drinking raw milk should be your right, then you should have no problem if people smoke, women get abortions, or for same sex to marry.

You do have the right to put your health at risk, you do not have the right to put the health of others at risk.

People that don't want to use common sense, should be required to sign a waiver stating they choose to do it and will not sue the farmer. Because if you or your family got sick from drinking raw milk - that is the first thing you would do.......

And you get sick but still go to work and spread the germs to your fellow co-workers (and not all of these can be spread by respiratory means, but some can)

Tell this to the co worker who goes to work with the supposed common cold or flu which is highly contagious and deteriorate quickly into life threatening pneumonia. Happens everyday. Give irrefutable evidence please of the frequency of milk instituted illnesses.

FINutmegger,

The FDA has them,

Got_it

The FDA DOES regulate tobacco, they just didn't ban it, and that has more to do with the extent of commerce related to it. I am sure there are many within the FDA that would love to ban it.

Also, though not mentioned, if ASA (asprin) were to be brought to the market today, it wouldn't be approved, we STILL don't know all of its effects and it just wouldn't pass muster. It isn't restricted now because it was always over the counter,

Jonathan, I don't doubt for a minute that the FDA has numbers but I would doubt the veracity of their data. It is not in their best interests to publish anything that goes against their agenda. IMHO, this is yet another Federal Agency who is working only for the best interests of their masters the big-agra complex and not in the best interests of the general public. The selling of the government and its power goes on and generally at the expense of the public.

this is yet another Federal Agency who is working only for the best interests of their masters the big-agra complex and not in the best interests of the general public.

Where is your proof ????

And a link to some "wacko conspiracy" site won't do. How about a link to some ABC, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, BBC or PBS story to prove your point.

Tired of all the "wacko stories"

"Well its a government conspiracy that I didn't win the big lotto"

"It's a government conspiracy to cover up that Dale Earnhardt was killed by the Iranians"

"Blame big government for (insert the usual whine here.....)"

Wow, based on the commentary, we ain't playing 'bout how we feel about government and fresh/raw milk.

Marshall James

if I died....please tell me how that would violate your rights.

I'm thinking that there will be collateral damage to your family if you have one, especially if any of them drank the raw milk that killed you.

FIN,

The FDA uses independent studies, so any references from the FDA that they are using will come from universities etc... Lets see the universities produce some other data. (they also use CDC data as it is them that would track any illnesses).

And again, the issue here isn't the sale of raw milk, it is the TRANSPORT of it across state lines. And once you open it up, you have to open it up everywhere. That is why the language in the legislation that died in the senate was about distance, not about state lines.

I personally have no issue with a farmer selling the product locally, but I have a BIG issue of the implications of this, being that a farmer can now start selling wholesale milk products nationwide for a product that has a life of just a few days because it wasn't pasteurized.

But yeah blame big government for TOTALLY MISREPRESENTING the story in this article (the feds didn't shut him down, the feds didn't stop him from selling the raw milk, they just said, don't sell it across state lines, and he shut himself down). Yeah blame big government for that.

The arguments in this seed are totally ridiculous. This is not an issue of rights at all. There is no right that grants you freedom to sell whatever goods you want. In fact, the constitution specifically gives the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The government is well within it's authority to tell this farmer that he can't sell that milk across state lines.

If the argument is that raw milk should be deemed as safe by the FDA, then you need to attack their scientific research, which no one here seems to have any idea about. But no, no one's rights are being violated.

Well looks like the FDA likes to pick and choose their studies.

"The milk we drink today is quite unlike the milk our ancestors were drinking" without apparent harm for 2,000 years, she said. "The milk we drink today may not be nature's perfect food."

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html

Got_It, her statement about "without apparent harm for 2,000 years" is rather dubious. There have been huge outbreaks in that time, and even as recently as 80 years ago, we had typhoid outbreaks (from unsanitary conditions at many milk collection sites) in Canada killing hundreds of people.

In that time, our life-span has increased at least two-fold. And the diseases bourne by milk have been almost entirely eradicated -- when was the last typhoid or TB or anthrax outbreak in the US from natural causes of any sort?

Did you think they were cleaner about 500 years ago than they are now? What about 1300 years ago?

If a mere 80 years ago had multiple severe outbreaks in tiny farms in Canada, then I rather think it's foolish to presume conditions were superior prior to that.

chirmly,

even in the US, with the introduction of widespread pasteurization in the 20's, illnesses and outbreaks were drastically reduced, but even today, the illness rates from those that drink raw milk far exceed those that drink pasteurized.

That said, we do really need to change a lot of the things we do in agriculture, the hormones, the antibiotics in feed etc...

The study referenced has one really big problem though, and that is that it doesn't refer to the difference between raw and homogenized milk, but of milk in general. Now if the assertion was to ban cows milk in general, I would actually be ok with that. There is a lot to say that we shouldn't be drinking the milk of another animal.

The problem with raw milk to me though isn't the raw milk, but how perishable that it is, with a very limited life span before it spoils. That makes it required that there be severe restrictions on how it is marketed, though I don't have a problem with people buying it if they know what they are buying. In the case of this farmer though, it isn't that he was prevented from selling his product, but that he didn't want to accept the limitations that were put in place to protect consumers.

Give me the irradiated milk, that stuff lasts along time.

AL,

I would rather just not drink milk myself.

At most, I cook with it, and that isn't all that much either.

There are diseases that can be caught by drinking raw milk. Ok. That fact is documented.

I can catch diseases by doing almost anything. If I want to drink raw milk, and think the risk is worth it, then I should be able to. If I want to have sex with someone with hiv, and don't use a condom, then I should be able to.

I bet the CDC has the stats for these illnesses.

dowser,

they do. They can justify the ban, and they would like to outright ban raw milk, but they know they can't do anything intrastate, that it is up to the states to do that.

Thanks! :-)

Well looks like the FDA likes to pick and choose their studies.

Your going to stake you entire case against pasteurization of milk on one ongoing study that has not been published , much less peer-reviewed? Besides this discussion has nothing to do with hormones in milk--yet another diversion from the real issue of sometimes lethal disease causing organisms that can easily be carried in raw milk.

Marshall James

How can we call ourselves the land of the free when stuff like this happens?? If someone wants to ingest something...isnt it their right??

YEAH pass the crack pipe dammit!

This is an issue of public health. Raw milk is dangerous!

If raw milk was safe we would have it in all our retail stores.

imrightnotyou-

Do me a favor, find me data showing deaths from Raw milk compared with deaths from smoking and alcohol, if you can prove Raw milk is equally or more dangerous, I will jump the boat with you, and together we will save the world from tummy aches and diarrhea..

Marshall James-

It is so ridiculous. Raw milk is such a problem.... How is Humanity still even here? You know, after consuming Raw Milk for thousands upon thousands of years....You would think we never would have made it....

It is so ridiculous. Raw milk is such a problem....

Seems to be for the few dozen people that have died from it.

You know, after consuming Raw Milk for thousands upon thousands of years

You mean fire was discovered AFTER agriculture?? Wow, that's a whole new revelation... you should write a history book or something, you could call it "I pretend to know stuff about history, but I really don't."

You know what, I'm sorry, I have to apologise for that, it was a half-assed effort at being an ass, I can do a lot better than that... here:

A word to the not so wise, humankind began milking cows approximately 30,000 years ago, but was cooking with fire for at least the previous 470,000 years.

But just for the hell of it, let's just see how "wise" your argument was even if for some strange reason fire hadn't been discovered until just recently... You know if facing wild lions on the serengeti without weapons is such a problem then how could humanity have done it for thousands of years?? Yup, pretty stupid argument even IF the premise it was based upon had any basis in fact, which of course it didn't.

Now I've been as much of an ass as I should have been, you're welcome.

A word to the not so wise, humankind began milking cows approximately 30,000 years ago, but was cooking with fire for at least the previous 470,000 years.

I imagine you are trying to say that since fire has been in use for X amount of years, it proves that mankind was boiling his milk? It is possible, I would assume for storing purposes it was done, but I highly doubt it was boiled if it was to be immediately consumed. Many primitives to this day drink Raw Blood from the animals they hunt, the cut the throat and drink it from the vien. Moreover, they are surprisingly healthy overall, they run for miles at a time, excellent cardio, low rates of disease.

Moreover, I grew up in a Rural part of Indiana. Guess what, many people that farm or live near farms consume Raw Milk. Milk it, drink it warm. But these are healthy, free range, organic cows, no crazy growth hormones etc..

Be well.

Guess what, many people that farm or live near farms consume Raw Milk. Milk it, drink it warm.

Right on target here, Lincoln, and the story of my life as a hired farmhand. I always carried a pint bottle in my coveralls when milking and would milk straight into the bottle and drink it warm from there, too. I started doing that at 11 years old and did it until I was old enough to go into the Army at 16&6. Being as how I am now 87, and with most of my physical ailments being the direct results of combat, not warm milk, I figure something went right there. I would also suggest that the hysterical condemnations, of people, who would deny me my rights is something that has gone wrong here, too. Also their sanctimonious arguments that they are doing it to protect me from myself, seems a bit disengenuous as it reminds me of the bully who would beat up on kids in order for them not to be beat up on by other bullies since he got to them first.

Also their sanctimonious arguments that they are doing it to protect me from myself....

Strange isn't it?

Question for you "raw" milk drinkers - how long after the milk actually left the cow would you drink the milk? A day, a week, wait until it has begun turning - how long?

It has been years since I drank raw milk, but when I did, it was consumed within minutes. We milked as needed it.

Thanks Lincoln! I suspect, for the most part, that is exactly how most "raw" milk drinkers consume fresh milk. I know that living right beside a fairly large dairy farm for 20 years, we drank the raw milk only on the day that it was milked!

Today, I am partial to almond and coconut milk. Especially with Cinnamon Life cereal....

Be well!

:)

For the most part, and I am drawing from very old memories here, 75 years ago, we milked today, and strained it into 40 gallon stainless steel cans which were put into a cooler to cool for bottling. What we had milked, twice, from yesterday, and bottled, was was taken from another cooler, loaded onto the truck and then delivered around the city to our customers. Yesterdays milk was delivered today and today's milk would be bottled and delivered tomorrow. We did this on a daily basis with all of our customers. 3 day old milk was sold to the CMPA and picked up from the barn cooler in huge stainless steel tanker trucks for delivery to a company who then took our old milk, pasteurized it and sold it to local markets across the state. Fresh milk daily was separated and the cream bottled and the skim milk dumped into a brook. This is about what took place on a daily basis 7 days a week and I would still drink fresh milk if I could get it. The bottom line is to know who your supplier is and the conditions under which the milk is gotten and handled. You work with a dirty farm and you are going to get dirty milk and from what I have seen of these mega farm's conditions--no thank you.

We, having a refrigerator, have consumed raw milk up to a week after it was "made" with no ill effects - ever. Milk, whether "raw" or not, does funk things in the coffee and smells not so nice otherwise if it has "turned".

IMO, the gov is unreasonably denying freedom from the wise to "protect" the less than careful (smart/educated). Sort of like the states which make it illegal to own/use firework vs those that say "you can own/use fireworks, but we will hold you responsible for damage/injury related to their use". I can see warning labels and such, but NOT making it illegal to sell/purchase.

It is not illegal to buy/sell Drain-O, even though drinking it will cause more harm far quicker than raw milk!!! (yeah, hyperbole, but just to make a point). More rationally: (as some one said in another post) raw eggs/meat CAN cause fatal illness - but we do not prevent their sale/purchase - it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the buyer to properly cook these!?!?!?

I don't think there is any kind of special agenda here. As always it is just about money. Follow the dollar. If you look closely there usually is one common element when our government becomes heavily involved. Fresh unprocessed milk could be easily obtained without paying the middleman by simply buying it directly from the dairy farmer or from his representative at a local farmer's market. No corporate benefit and very limited taxation.

Marijuana, as an example, is the same. It is available from a very inexpensive plant that almost anyone can grow. No middleman and very limited taxation if any. However our government has decided that it is among the most deadly drugs on this planet because it threatens the paper indusrty, the textile industry, and a host of other industries. So they have now agreed to let the pharmaceutical industry produce an extracted product for a very high price but the cheap plant that is easily available is still illegal and can land you in prison.

When any governmental institution does anything it is usually in response to some kind of pressure either from the public or from corporate or special interests. The later two usually put up a very large sum of money in the form of campaign contributions, buy political support, or simply pay for junkets for the politicians in order to get their wishes fulfilled. Am I saying that our Congress is corrupt? Well..... yes and no. It is corrupt in the sense that most Congressional representatives know which side their bread is buttered on. Actually it is a corrupt system that is at work here and they are just along for the ride.

However again in this case the feds didn't actually shut down his operation. They simply reminded him of the penalties for violating a law against shipping unprocessed milk products across state lines for the purpose of selling it so he voluntarily ceased selling his product in Washington, D.C. Beyond that the article did not specify whether he ceased production altogether or if he just reverted to selling his products locally which is legal in his state.

shepherd, I think he just shut down, but it was his choice.

the law was proper, he can sell locally, as PA law allows, but he can't sell across state lines.

So he should have just stopped selling across state lines. End of story.

does DC allow the sale of raw milk?

The end user can transport across state lines. One can not transport across state lines for (re)sale.

does DC allow the sale of any milk? and if so how does it get there?

It is illegal to sell raw milk in Washington D.C.

I wonder why that is??? whom are they protecting?

The federal government is protecting the people who reside in Washington D.C., since people in Washington D.C. (as well as elsewhere throughout the US) are FARRRrrrrrr more likely to be harmed by raw milk products than by pasteurized milk products.

Their Big Agra overlords.

In this Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, why is it permitted for a majority of drinkers of milk that has had all of its nutrients destroyed chemically to deny a minority from making free choices? All in the name of we are protecting you from yourself? Hogwash! I am 87 years old. Worked on a farm, milked by hand, strained, bottled and delivered thousand of quarts without a single customer reporting an illness caused by our milk. The milk came from tubercular tested cows in an environment a heck of a lot cleaner than I have ever seen in today's mega farms. Remember the soup Nazi on Seinfeld? Well you folks qualify as milk Nazis.