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.
It's actually the other way around. People are WANTING TO BUY from small farmers.
I don't advertise or try to sell and I can't keep up with those that want to buy eggs from me.
More than likely though you would not be the type of person to buy 1/2 a cow or veggies from a farm stand. That's fine; it's your choice.
But there are those that do seek out to buy direct from a small farmer.
I've no doubt this is the case, just have to ask, if I, for example, have to have a permit to sit in my house and work from my computer, why wouldn't you or the farmer in your OP have to do likewise?
I'm really not understanding the defense of this person's actions.
If regulations state that he has to have a permit, why didn't he get a permit?
I buy a bit at the farmer's markets in chicago because I know that we have safety standards for the protection of the buyers. same thing with the amish markets. I don't think living off the grid removes your responsibility to make sure that your food is safe for other people to eat.
They charged him for operating without a license. Not that his food was contaminated, not that people got sick, but that he didn't pay for and get a license.
Since I'm interested in the Amish I looked into this case.
His legal problems stem from the fact that he doesn't have a license and he won't get the proper health permits.
But he's turned into a bit of a Cause Celeb with anyone and everyone having a problem with the government and/or raw milk lovers and/or well, pretty much you name it. He's also got 9 kids. (Which has nothing to do with the case but it did come up in some of the reports and I'm using it to prove I did my homework, lol.) He's Amish and he's stubborn. In other breaking news the sun comes up in the East.
I trust raw milk more than I do homogenized or pasturized milk. gen milk is also not good either.
goverment should stay out of states business and keep to themselves.
I 100% support people to have the right to eat raw or not, whatever they want to do is their business.
All I'm saying is that anytime one of these organic or raw etc. outfits get in trouble with the law certain conspiracy types quickly jump in to claim they are shutting them all down and so forth.
The reality being that not every raw, organic etc. type operator is honest and some will get in trouble for their actions.
Best of luck with everyones personal food choices.
I'm not going to waste my time responding to the rest of your uninformed opinions, demanding evidence from others while making unsubstantiated claims yourself.
I can't even recall now what I've asked for--I think it was evidence showing pasteurized milk to be dangerous to drink. The paper's cited by this doctor, while interesting, don't really support the argument you're trying to make.
Estrogen is a 2B carcinogen, a list which also contains vegetables and cell phones. Milk--all kinds, contain various levels of estrogen.
I think your best evidence here is the following:
Quote:
Milk, dairy intake and risk of endometrial cancer: A 26-year follow-up
The other two sources are specifically correlation, and correlation is not causation. They're great jumping points for more research, but as smoking-gun evidence, they're not really great. We try to avoid unbased correlations like that.
The first source you have here states the following in its abstract.
Quote:
Total dairy intake was not significantly associated with risk of preinvasive endometrial cancer. In conclusion, we observed a marginally significant overall association between dairy intake and endometrial cancer and a stronger association among postmenopausal women who were not using estrogen-containing hormones.
But, like I said before, this isn't really all that much to go on. The relative risk assement was only statistically significant for post-menopausal women not undergoing hormone therapy. It's a limited crowd.
I don't think you understand what "published" means. If it was published in a scientific journal where it has and will undergo further peer review and serious scientific scrutiny, that's tremendous.
A press-release or news report isn't "published" material. Ganmaa was giving a talk during a lunch. And, this is all great, and perhaps we shouldn't be milking our cows during late pregnancy. Then again, you can say the same of women, who produce incredible levels of estrogen while they're pregnant too. Wouldn't want any of those babies to have estrogen in their system.
But, I fail to see how any of this is evidence against Pasteurization, GMO foods, or support for raw-milk. The estrogen levels in these cows are from pregnancy. Milking a cow that's pregnant would result in high estrogen levels even by drinking that milk raw.
And statements like "The conventional milk lobby would have you believe..." is editorializing.
Quote:
This is just one researcher among many, and just one of the negative affects of corporate mega dairies and the poison they produce which poses far greater dangers than NATURAL RAW MILK.
Your evidence doesn't support it. Drinking milk that wasn't from a pregnant cow would yield the same results, regardless of which cow that was. The CDC's research on raw-milk stated it was, as they claimed, 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized milk.
And I'll take the CDC's research over a yokel.
Quote:
I could cite many more examples of P U B L I S H E D studies linking dreadful outcomes from HUNDREDS of USDA/FDA approved items, none the least of which is ASPARTAME.
What about Aspartame? Are you going to argue that as well? We've still haven't touched Pasteurized milk.
Quote:
The facts are, several FDA scientists quit their jobs in protest of the decision to approve aspartame for human consumption, when ALL OF THE SCIENTIFIC DATA produced by all of the FDA's studies confirmed significant dangers in consuming that product.
They did? You'll have to back that one up too.
Quote:
But ... government loves you ... and really does care about your health.
I've no doubt this is the case, just have to ask, if I, for example, have to have a permit to sit in my house and work from my computer, why wouldn't you or the farmer in your OP have to do likewise?
I'm really not understanding the defense of this person's actions.
If regulations state that he has to have a permit, why didn't he get a permit?
I don't know about the farmer's state in the article, but in Texas I do not need a license to do what I do. That's part of the Texas Agricultural code.
If I sell direct to the consumer or a business that uses the eggs (like a restaurant) then I do not need a license. But I cannot grade or classify my eggs (like Grade A or medium/large).
So you posted a link and started a thread and didn't even do the basic research on his particular problem?
No, my reply was to a specific poster who asked why I didn't have a permit to sell my eggs.
From the article it said he needed a license if he was selling retail.
He said he was not selling retail but had a private club.
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.
