Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I buy milk in a grocery store , I can be assured that farmer had lab samples taken every time his milk left the farm .
Yes you can does that guarantee safety? what tests and cultures were performed, are the dangerous counts acceptable, where in the production pipeline are the tests performed (at the farm, dairy, packing plant?), what sample size is taken? It certainly did not prevent the listeria outbreak from Whittier Farms in 2007 or the Hillfarm Dairy salmonella outbreak in 1985.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac
I can be assured that twice a year the state inspector visited his farm, did an inspection, and took a water sample from the well.
I can be assured that state inspectors are monitoring processing plants and documentaions of tests are being done.
Good for you, however again, what are they looking for, what counts, what levels, what do comparable organizations consider safe levels, and of what contaminants? What were the variations of those results over time, when results were high what were the potential causes of that increase, when they were low what were the potential causes of that decrease?
Of course the ultimate test if you will is what amount of food borne illness was caused by your dairy produce?
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmac
Can you state the same when/if you go to some friendly guy's farm and are impressed because he wears a floppy hat and blasts the government ?
I really couldn't care less if some farmer wears only a jockstrap and furry boots with a swastika tattoo on his forehead, if his animals are healthy, his processes are efficient, his hygiene of his buildings, equipment, and people is excellent, his well is safely located and safe to drink directly from. What testing he does perform. Of course whether he objects to me inspecting is also a big tip off, people without anything to hide normally do not object to others inspecting, whether I can take some samples for independent bacteriological testing. Finally of course does he take pride in his work?
Now if I buy from a store the only thing that I can effectively rely upon is that minimum FDA/USDA standard, which has questionable independence given the composition of the FDA, Margaret Miller and Michael Taylor for instance both have ties to Posilac, and the US is the only western nation that approves the use of rBST (is this a coincidence?). Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, all of Europe banned it and even the UN have recommended that it not be used, yet here is the FDA (our food watchdog) saying it's perfectly OK. So do we have it right, and the collective minds of the rest of the western world have it wrong? Or is there something else going on? It certainly makes me question their credibility and independence.
I emphatically agree with stringent testing, inspections and regulations of distributed foods. In a distributed food system, the consumer has absolutely no idea where the food originated or how many stops it made on the way to their supermarket, so testing an regulations makes sense from a safety perspective.
I agree with minimal testing, inspection and regulations of local foods that are sold through local 3rd parties (co-ops & markets) if the consumer cannot/is not allowed to visit the farm/facility where it was produced.
I agree with optional testing and inspection of local foods and facilities that sell direct-to-consumer from their farm or facility. I agree with a minimal set of regulations via exemptions for items that are scale and market inappropriate.
The defining factor in food safety regulation/testing/inspection should be scale, market, distribution and level of separation from origin -- not whether the food is raw, pasteurized, processed or whatever.
What I can tell visiting my local farmer:
The animals aren't sick
The animals are properly cared for
They, themselves, aren't sick
Their family and workers aren't sick
The crops aren't diseased
They grow/raise in a manner that I agree with
Their facilities are clean and well maintained
Their production practices are sanitary and hygienic
Their well is properly located and maintained and the water smells/tastes clean
Everyone who is involved in the process before it gets in my hands
Whether or not the farmer seems shady and sets off my spidey-sense
If no person, animal or crop is unhealthy in the operation it is reasonable to assume that the water and foodstuffs are safe... even without testing. If there were a rampant infection or contamination going on, someone or something in the operation would have visible signs of illness.
Not true.
Even people with wells that are contaminated get mad and deny it.
Even farms that appear neat get warnings cuz their bacteria and scc are too high.
But, with many raw milk buyers, they believe what they don't know can't hurt them.
If raw dairy was legal you could still be assured of all these things.
Nope.
Cuz the raw milk sellers and buyers would be crying that they shouldn't be held to the same testing standards cuz they are small and can't afford testing. ( farmers market ring a bell
Just cuz some floppy hatter is a small producer, that shouldn't exempt him from testing rules.
Even people with wells that are contaminated get mad and deny it.
Even farms that appear neat get warnings cuz their bacteria and scc are too high.
But, with many raw milk buyers, they believe what they don't know can't hurt them.
Granted, contaminations still occur even when things appear clean and safe. This is not limited only to local, direct-sell farms either... food-bourne illness still occur in regulated, tested, and inspected foods and facilities as well.
I would propose that many raw milk buyers, and direct-buyers of local farm products are highly aware that what you don't know can hurt you... which is why they chose to purchase from local farmers that they can inspect in person rather than trusting in a faceless food manufacturing chain.
Some people prefer to trust in 3rd party testing, regulations and inspections. Some people prefer to trust in what they can observe for themselves. It's a PREFERENCE... neither is right or wrong.
CLEARLY the vegetarian agenda has managed to turn the government towards cracking down on big business food producers in order to force us all to adopt a raw foods lifestyle.
Just a little example as to how I view the quality of the initial post.
Granted, contaminations still occur even when things appear clean and safe. This is not limited only to local, direct-sell farms either... food-bourne illness still occur in regulated, tested, and inspected foods and facilities as well.
I would propose that many raw milk buyers, and direct-buyers of local farm products are highly aware that what you don't know can hurt you... which is why they chose to purchase from local farmers that they can inspect in person rather than trusting in a faceless food manufacturing chain.
Some people prefer to trust in 3rd party testing, regulations and inspections. Some people prefer to trust in what they can observe for themselves. It's a PREFERENCE... neither is right or wrong.
---neither is right or wrong--
not so.
My way of thinking has the law on my side
Your way of thinking requires laws to be changed
My way of thinking has the law on my side
Your way of thinking requires laws to be changed
I could get into a philosophical discussion about whether or not legal/illegal and right/wrong are the same thing... but I won't.
WRT to the raw milk issue, you are correct the law in some states say it's illegal to sell it. I could argue that the USDA/FDA overstepped its authority making something illegal as opposed to just regulating it... but I won't.
You and I will never see eye-to-eye on the issues of personal liberty, personal responsibility, and personal accountability. I have no interest in getting you to agree with me, you're free to have your own opinions and beliefs. I will continue to discuss my alternative views for anyone else who might be interested. I refuse to let your bullying silence me.
Bully: a blustering browbeating person; especially: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker
Blustering: to utter with noisy self-assertiveness (i.e. aggression)
Browbeating: to intimidate or disconcert by a stern manner or arrogant speech
Rather than list links, I'll just say that the majority of your posts fit those definitions.
You seem unable to state your position without resorting to personal attacks and libelous, slanderous, defamatory, derisive, disparaging or combative statements.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
