Morningland Dairy raided and another family business destroyed 01/25/13

[gallantwarrior]

Yes, I do think they are too stupid to feed their children properly. I know a lot of parents who are too stupid to immunize their children, and who give their children homeopathic medications. And there are children who have died as the result of faith healing in lieu of being taken to a doctor.

You really have to ask that question?

How many have died due to the ministrations of doctors and hospitals?

A lot less than would have died if they were all treated with faith healing or homeopathy.

Critical thinking is not the strong suit of people like you and them.

Think we should send the FDA to put them out of business, too?

My parents were raised on raw milk, as were all of their generation. Somehow, they managed to live through it.

I expect their parents would've happily shot anyone with the temerity to suggest they were too stupid to raise thier children.

I think statists are too stupid to vote, but I'm not going to send anyone around to arrest them for it.

I remind you that the dairy which was raided had diseases in EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SAMPLES TAKEN.

Did the cops raid every raw milk dairy? No. Just the one that was dangerous. What if your family bought milk from them?

Again, critical thinking is not your strong suit.

If you bothered to read the article I posted, you would know that NO samples were taken at the dairy and the swabs taken at the production facility tested negative. As far as the samples from Rawsome Foods in CA, that whole operation stinks of government overreach and interference. And, yes, it is more than possible, it is most likely, that the "tests" were jacked up to support government action. It happens all the time.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you want raw milk to be sold retail, then you have to put consumer protections in place since the consumer is getting the milk indirectly. That shit needs to be inspected carefully just like every other food product. If it is such great stuff, then why the fear of inspection? Hmmmm...

If you buy the raw milk directly from the farmer, then you know the source. You can make an informed decision.

In retail, especially in interstate commerce, that is not the case.


Look, folks, I buy my beef and pork directly from local farms. Grass fed cows, no antibiotics or growth hormones. I'm real big on that shit. The taste can't be beat. But they are USDA inspected farms. I don't know how to inspect meat, and it would be stupid to expect me to know how.

I live in the real world, and we cannot have unregulated food being sold to unwitting consumers.

From what I can tell they were selling it from their farm and not through a retailer.

The original determination came after a raid of Rawsome Foods in CA, where they were selling some Morningland Dairy products.

 

[gallantwarrior]

If you want raw milk to be sold retail, then you have to put consumer protections in place since the consumer is getting the milk indirectly. That shit needs to be inspected carefully just like every other food product. If it is such great stuff, then why the fear of inspection? Hmmmm...

If you buy the raw milk directly from the farmer, then you know the source. You can make an informed decision.

In retail, especially in interstate commerce, that is not the case.


Look, folks, I buy my beef and pork directly from local farms. Grass fed cows, no antibiotics or growth hormones. I'm real big on that shit. The taste can't be beat. But they are USDA inspected farms. I don't know how to inspect meat, and it would be stupid to expect me to know how.

I live in the real world, and we cannot have unregulated food being sold to unwitting consumers.

From what I can tell they were selling it from their farm and not through a retailer.

And it was rife with disease. That's why they were shut down. Not because of some bogus crypto dairy industry conspiracy.

Did the government shut down EVERY raw milk seller?

Hmmmm...

I guess they must have been trying to stop this particular one from poisoning their customers then!

But hey, let's drink their tears, too, amiright?

Please cite your source for this statement. I would be interested.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

Not true, it varies from state-to-state. CA actually permits retail sales of raw milk, as do: WA, ID, AZ, NM, MA, NH, CT, PA, and SC. States that do not allow no legal sales of raw milk: MT, NV, WI, IA, WV, MD, DL, VA, NJ. Other states have different accommodations, including: farm sale legal, herd share legal, legal as pet food, or no firm determination.
You are quite correct about milk produced by grass-fed, naturally pastured cows being more healthy and safer than the mass-produced swill commonly sold to the public.

I'm in NYC. It's retarded that I can't go to the union market and buy raw milk from the same people I buy cheese from just 30 minutes upstate. At least I can buy raw milk cheese - which is also under attack from the dairy industry.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Let me ask you people something.

First let me say that I do not drink milk, ever.

For thousands of years people drank milk directly from their own cows or goats with no refrigeration or pasteurization. Now did all of those people get sick?

Obviously not. In fact not even enough people got sick so as to make other people stop drinking milk directly from their cows or goats.

So what happened?

The industrial revolution that's what.

People were no longer getting milk directly from their own cows or their neighbor's cows and that's where the problem of bacterial growth became a health factor.

Now I ask you with modern refrigeration capabilities why would drinking unpasteurized milk be any more dangerous today than before the industrial revolution?

You have that right. With the industrial revolution, the populace congregated in urban centers. Of course, some clever entrepreneurs moved their cows into the city and fed them the swill from breweries, crowded the cows into unsafe, unsanitary conditions and produced milk so poor that they added chalk to it to make it white. There was quite a debate about pasteurization. Understand that in those days, the cities still had open sewers and extremely poor sanitation (all foodstuffs were suspect). Milk was implicated in the spread of tuberculosis, most likely introduced into the milk supply by sick milkmaids or other handlers. (The strain of tuberculosis harbored by cows is different from that which infects people. There is clear evidence that the two strains do not cross species.) The proponents of pasteurization won out and their campaign to demonize fresh, whole, natural (raw) milk was successful beyond their wildest dreams. Just observe the fear and loathing exhibited by people who detest raw milk and would deny it to everyone else.

 

[uscitizen]

Hey if people want to drink raw milk then let them as long as they are making an informed decision it's nobody's business.

You mean the people who chose Romney and Obama as their best choices to lead our country?

 

[gallantwarrior]

By-the-way, what laws did they break?

From what I gather, they violated an injunction.

And I again remind you that when listeria was found in their products, they did a recall. And then when the recalled milk products were tested, diseases were found in every single one.

This is what prompted the AG to seek an injunction against this particular dairy.

I'm still interested in your cite that every product tested was positive.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Evidence for this claim no one got sick, please.

I never said no one got sick did I?

I asked if all those people got sick, The answer is no.

Then I posited that even if some got sick not enough people got sick to stop others from drinking milk directly from their own cows and goats. Now history shows us that certain food restrictions were health related. For example the ancient prohibition against eating pork was no doubt because of widespread trichinosis. Now if raw milk was such a danger would there not have been restrictions placed upon it as well?

It's a simple deduction to make as people are still drinking milk.

Its a fallacious conclusion with no supporting evidence.

Humans had two choices of hydration: milk and water. And they did not know bacteria even existed. They did not have the knowledge to attribute sickness and disease to the milk they were drinking. Sanitation was virtually non-existent.

How often can sicknesses be attributed to the water people drink?

 

[Ravi]

I never said no one got sick did I?

I asked if all those people got sick, The answer is no.

Then I posited that even if some got sick not enough people got sick to stop others from drinking milk directly from their own cows and goats. Now history shows us that certain food restrictions were health related. For example the ancient prohibition against eating pork was no doubt because of widespread trichinosis. Now if raw milk was such a danger would there not have been restrictions placed upon it as well?

It's a simple deduction to make as people are still drinking milk.

Its a fallacious conclusion with no supporting evidence.

Humans had two choices of hydration: milk and water. And they did not know bacteria even existed. They did not have the knowledge to attribute sickness and disease to the milk they were drinking. Sanitation was virtually non-existent.

How often can sicknesses be attributed to the water people drink?

Seriously? Ever hear of cholera?

 

[ba1614]

America weeps while these cocksuckers regulate us to death.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Its a fallacious conclusion with no supporting evidence.

Humans had two choices of hydration: milk and water. And they did not know bacteria even existed. They did not have the knowledge to attribute sickness and disease to the milk they were drinking. Sanitation was virtually non-existent.

It's a deduction.

We don't have conclusive supporting evidence for a lot of shit in the historical record.



And do you deny that people drank raw milk from their own animals for thousands of years? And if not are you saying that they all got sick? If you are then you should provide evidence should you not.

There are all kinds of articles about milk born diseases out there. Here is an easy one: scroll down to question #4 on the left.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2282302/?page=1

Right, like there were absolutely no other transmission sources for any of those diseases during the time period cited. It's kind of like blaming everything wrong with this country on Bush...
Always grasp at the simplest solution in order to justify your proposition. Most of the time, if someone shows up at the hospital with gastro-intestinal issues and admits to consuming raw dairy products, that's the end of the investigation? How many sources of infection are missed because of a failure to thoroughly investigate possible sources? I wonder how many milk drinkers also eat peanut butter?

Salmonella and Peanut Butter: Victims' Stories | Food Safety News

 

[gallantwarrior]

Its a fallacious conclusion with no supporting evidence.

Humans had two choices of hydration: milk and water. And they did not know bacteria even existed. They did not have the knowledge to attribute sickness and disease to the milk they were drinking. Sanitation was virtually non-existent.

It's a deduction.

We don't have conclusive supporting evidence for a lot of shit in the historical record.

And do you deny that people drank raw milk from their own animals for thousands of years? And if not are you saying that they all got sick? If you are then you should provide evidence should you not.

They didn't all get sick, but they either milked the cow themselves or got it from the guy next door and could make an informed decision. These days the number of people that can claim that level of knowledge is very small. Also, in the past very little milk was consumed as milk, usually being turned into more stable products, like cheese, butter and yogurt.

Back in the day, that's how you kept your milk in a consumable condition. No refrigeration...

 

[Katzndogz]

There's nothing wrong with raw milk. THIS raw milk might be tainted but raw milk is not usually tainted. It's like a few years ago when green onions spread e-coli. No one said that green onions should be taken off the market because ALL green onions caused e-coli. Raw milk and raw mild products should be available to anyone who wants them. There should also be testing to determine that the products are safe.

Listeriosis was spread by canteloupes, should we take canteloupes off the market?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Not true, it varies from state-to-state. CA actually permits retail sales of raw milk, as do: WA, ID, AZ, NM, MA, NH, CT, PA, and SC. States that do not allow no legal sales of raw milk: MT, NV, WI, IA, WV, MD, DL, VA, NJ. Other states have different accommodations, including: farm sale legal, herd share legal, legal as pet food, or no firm determination.
You are quite correct about milk produced by grass-fed, naturally pastured cows being more healthy and safer than the mass-produced swill commonly sold to the public.

I'm in NYC. It's retarded that I can't go to the union market and buy raw milk from the same people I buy cheese from just 30 minutes upstate. At least I can buy raw milk cheese - which is also under attack from the dairy industry.

Considering your raw milk would most likely come to market with the benefit of refrigeration, you would have a superior product. Alas, government knows better than you do what you should put into your body. I am blessed to have the space, time, and inclination to raise my own milk animals and reap the rewards of my efforts.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's nothing wrong with raw milk. THIS raw milk might be tainted but raw milk is not usually tainted. It's like a few years ago when green onions spread e-coli. No one said that green onions should be taken off the market because ALL green onions caused e-coli. Raw milk and raw mild products should be available to anyone who wants them. There should also be testing to determine that the products are safe.

Listeriosis was spread by canteloupes, should we take canteloupes off the market?

Apparently, yes.

 

[Skull Pilot]

there are all kinds of articles about milk born diseases out there. Here is an easy one: Scroll down to question #4 on the left.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc2282302/?page=1

1943?

Yeah, 1943. Evidence that raw milk was a problem.

So there have been absolutely no advancements in refrigeration or safe handling methods since then huh?

Have there been scientific studies of raw milk produced under modern sanitary conditions?

1943 is ancient history.

 

[Ravi]

It's a deduction.

We don't have conclusive supporting evidence for a lot of shit in the historical record.



And do you deny that people drank raw milk from their own animals for thousands of years? And if not are you saying that they all got sick? If you are then you should provide evidence should you not.

There are all kinds of articles about milk born diseases out there. Here is an easy one: scroll down to question #4 on the left.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2282302/?page=1

Right, like there were absolutely no other transmission sources for any of those diseases during the time period cited. It's kind of like blaming everything wrong with this country on Bush...
Always grasp at the simplest solution in order to justify your proposition. Most of the time, if someone shows up at the hospital with gastro-intestinal issues and admits to consuming raw dairy products, that's the end of the investigation? How many sources of infection are missed because of a failure to thoroughly investigate possible sources? I wonder how many milk drinkers also eat peanut butter?

Salmonella and Peanut Butter: Victims' Stories | Food Safety News

Dude, where did I say that?

If you think the American public isn't concerned about tainted milk or peanut butter you're more of a nutter than I ever gave you credit for.

 

[Ravi]

1943?

Yeah, 1943. Evidence that raw milk was a problem.

So there have been absolutely no advancements in refrigeration or safe handling methods since then huh?

Have there been scientific studies of raw milk produced under modern sanitary conditions?

1943 is ancient history.

Yeah, it's called pasturization and food safety.

Like I said before, I don't care if the cow owner drinks raw milk. I care if it gets out into the general population with a serious bacteria.

 

[gallantwarrior]

There are all kinds of articles about milk born diseases out there. Here is an easy one: scroll down to question #4 on the left.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2282302/?page=1

Right, like there were absolutely no other transmission sources for any of those diseases during the time period cited. It's kind of like blaming everything wrong with this country on Bush...
Always grasp at the simplest solution in order to justify your proposition. Most of the time, if someone shows up at the hospital with gastro-intestinal issues and admits to consuming raw dairy products, that's the end of the investigation? How many sources of infection are missed because of a failure to thoroughly investigate possible sources? I wonder how many milk drinkers also eat peanut butter?

Salmonella and Peanut Butter: Victims' Stories | Food Safety News

Dude, where did I say that?

If you think the American public isn't concerned about tainted milk or peanut butter you're more of a nutter than I ever gave you credit for.

Enormous segments of the American public are as abysmally ignorant about the food they pack down their gullets as they are on many, many other subjects.

 

[DiamondDave]

If I want raw milk (not that I do) or if I want a local farm to bring the cow on my front porch so my family and I can suck right from the uncleaned udder, is nobody's business but my own.. as long as it is not being advertised as something it is not....