(02-15-2012 11:16 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 10:27 AM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 09:42 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 09:02 AM)ctipton Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 08:31 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  Amazing that this can happen in America.

Not really. Not anymore.

BearcatBeta Wrote:What's next?? A forced washing of the kids hands? Mandatory bed wetting inspections?? Checking for clean underwear?

How about a federal crackdown and sting operation on an Amish family farm for the interstate sale of unpasteurized milk? Only redeeming part of this story is a lot of the irate customers are lefties who now get to see first-hand what Big Government is all about...

Quote:Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk

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.

The decision has enraged Mr. Allgyer's supporters, some of whom have been buying from him for six years and say the government is interfering with their parental rights to feed their children.

But the Food and Drug Administration, which launched a full investigation complete with a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and a straw-purchase sting operation against Mr. Allgyer's Rainbow Acres Farm, said unpasteurized milk is unsafe and it was exercising its due authority to stop sales of the milk from one state to another.

Adding to Mr. Allgyer's troubles, Judge Lawrence F. Stengel said that if the farmer is found to violate the law again, he will have to pay the FDA's costs for investigating and prosecuting him.

His customers are wary of talking publicly, fearing the FDA will come after them.

"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," said one of them, who asked not to be named but received weekly shipments of eggs, milk, honey and butter from Rainbow Acres, a farm near Lancaster, Pa. "In Maryland, they force taxpayers to pay for abortions, but God forbid we want the same milk our grandparents drank."

The FDA, though, said the judge made the right call in halting Mr. Allgyer's cross-border sales.

"Intrastate sale of raw milk is allowed in Pennsylvania, and Mr. Allgyer had previously received a warning letter advising him that interstate sale of raw milk for human consumption is illegal," agency spokeswoman Siobhan DeLancey said.

Neither the FDA nor the Justice Department, which pursued the legal case, provided numbers to The Washington Times on the cost of the investigation and court fight.

Fans of fresh milk, which they also call raw milk, attribute all kinds of health benefits to it, including better teeth and stronger immune systems. Raw milk is particularly popular among parents who want it for their children.

In a unique twist, the movement unites people on the left and the right who argue that the federal government has no business controlling what people choose to consume.

In a rally last year, they drank fresh milk in a park across Constitution Avenue from the Senate.

But the FDA says it concluded, after extensive study along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, that raw milk is never safer than pasteurized milk. It disputes those who say pasteurization — the process of heating food to kill harmful organisms — makes it less healthy.

Many food-safety researchers say pasteurization, which became widespread in the 1920s and 1930s, dramatically reduced instances of milk-transmitted diseases such as typhoid fever and diphtheria.

The FDA began looking into Mr. Allgyer's operations in late 2009, when an investigator in the agency's Baltimore office used aliases to sign up for a Yahoo user group made up of Rainbow Acres customers.

The investigator placed orders for fresh milk and had it delivered to private residences in Maryland, where it was picked up and documented as evidence in the case. By crossing state lines, the milk became part of interstate commerce and thus subject to the FDA's ban.

At one point, FDA employees made a 5 a.m. visit to Mr. Allgyer's farm. He turned them away, but not before they observed milk containers labeled for shipment to Maryland.

After the FDA first took action, Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them.

Judge Stengel called that deal "merely a subterfuge."

"The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to Mr. Allgyer and receive raw milk," the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion.

Grassfed On the Hill Buying Club has about 500 active members.

Liz Reitzig, a mother who has become a raw-milk activist and is an organizer of the group, said the lawyers who pursued the case against Mr. Allgyer ought to "be ashamed."

"Many families are dependent on the milk for health reasons or nutritional needs, so a lot of people will be desperately trying to find another source now," she said.

Feds shut down Amish farm for selling fresh milk

The FDA absolutely made right decision. Raw milk can contain pathogenic bacteria. In addition, pasteurizing milk does not take away any of nutritive value of milk. Further, allowing raw milk increases chances of spread of disease among those who are not consuming products. The interstate ban exists because it puts farm animals and humans at risk who are not involved in consuming raw milk. Its a public health hazard.

So sayeth you and the Federal Government. But it's perfectly legal to sell it intrastate in about half of the states and in many other countries. Proponents argue that the taste is far superior and some studies have shown a statistically significant inverse relationship between consumption of raw milk and asthma and allergies. Furthermore, practically any food can make one sick - especially when raw. I'm almost scared to ask: Are you ready to ban the interstate sale of raw greens, berries, tomatoes, sprouts, oysters, tuna, etc. too?

More importantly, nobody is forcing you to buy or drink it.

It's not just the Federal Government that's saying it, it's every scientific organization in the world that has studied raw milk. The risks associated with raw milk far outweight any potential benefits in regards to asthma or allergies. Some of the pathogens found in raw milk are pathogens with a high virulence that can serious diseases like renal failure and even death, conditions far more serious than asthma or allergies. Furthermore, the studies that posited a link between allergies and raw milk are considered to be extremely inconclusive because it is possible and highly likely that the resistance to allergies is due to fact that many raw milk drinkers spend a large amount of time directly interacting with animals, which is known to increase allergy resistance.

There is a huge difference between other raw foods and raw milk which can be fatal to both humans and animals. Of course nobody is forced to buy or drink it, but the reason interstate sales must be banned is that such travel of raw milk puts livestock and humans at risk through contamination, even if livestock and humans are not buyers or consumers of raw milk.

(02-15-2012 01:52 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  It's not just the Federal Government that's saying it, it's every scientific organization in the world that has studied raw milk. The risks associated with raw milk far outweight any potential benefits in regards to asthma or allergies. Some of the pathogens found in raw milk are pathogens with a high virulence that can serious diseases like renal failure and even death, conditions far more serious than asthma or allergies.

Nobody is forcing you to buy or use it. Feel free to educate the world about your position - if everyone agrees, there will be no buyers and nobody will sell it. No laws necessary and as noted many states and countries feel that way.

Quote:Furthermore, the studies that posited a link between allergies and raw milk are considered to be extremely inconclusive because it is possible and highly likely that the resistance to allergies is due to fact that many raw milk drinkers spend a large amount of time directly interacting with animals, which is known to increase allergy resistance.

For someone so adamant that your position must legally be everyone's position, you seem very sketchy and/or slanted on your version of "facts". Per a very recent (2011) large European study, they've gone so far as to identify the specific protective factor destroyed by pasteurization: "The protective effect was linked to so-called whey proteins in the milk, such as BSA and alpha-lactalbumin."

Kids who drink raw milk have less asthma, allergies

Does a 41% reduction in your kids' odds of developing asthma (a serious and potentially fatal illness; along with a 50% reduction in hay fever and the taste factor) outweigh the undisputed risks? Maybe not to your or your family. But why can't everyone decide for themselves just as they do everyday on a variety of issues that involve risks from hygiene to sports to transportation. Who are you to decide for everyone?

Quote:There is a huge difference between other raw foods and raw milk which can be fatal to both humans and animals.

There is a risk with many things including raw foods other than milk - and you are not informed if you think those can't be fatal as well. Who are you to decide for an informed public where they MUST draw their lines?

Quote:Of course nobody is forced to buy or drink it, but the reason interstate sales must be banned is that such travel of raw milk puts livestock and humans at risk through contamination, even if livestock and humans are not buyers or consumers of raw milk.

I don't follow your logic about how crossing a state line magically changes things (aside from the overreach of federal law). How much did we taxpayers spend on this 2 year investigation including federal prosecutors and court costs? Why are the Feds afraid to release that info? All so they could put a small family business out of commission. Talk about a waste of money. For the last time: If you don't want raw milk, be like me and don't buy it! People should be able to decide for themselves what milk they want.

Apparently that state worker has no ideas whats in a chicken nugget.

My kid would eat chicken nuggets left and right. Then I found an article about a British teenager who at nothing but McDonald's Chicken McNuggets from the age 2 and had serious health issues (duh). Eat too much of any one thing, you'll get sick for sure, but the article listed the garbage in McNuggets and it was disgusting. Leftover chicken parts is probably the best thing in them.

After reading the article, my kid no longer eats McNuggets. A small victory.

Anyway, one fool state employee makes for good news but stupidity is universal. Extrapolating this to a grand government conspiracy is a stretch, I think.

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Apparently that state worker has no ideas whats in a chicken nugget.

My kid would eat chicken nuggets left and right. Then I found an article about a British teenager who at nothing but McDonald's Chicken McNuggets from the age 2 and had serious health issues (duh). Eat too much of any one thing, you'll get sick for sure, but the article listed the garbage in McNuggets and it was disgusting. Leftover chicken parts is probably the best thing in them.

After reading the article, my kid no longer eats McNuggets. A small victory.

Anyway, one fool state employee makes for good news but stupidity is universal. Extrapolating this to a grand government conspiracy is a stretch, I think.

Do you worship the government nipple?

(02-16-2012 11:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Apparently that state worker has no ideas whats in a chicken nugget.

My kid would eat chicken nuggets left and right. Then I found an article about a British teenager who at nothing but McDonald's Chicken McNuggets from the age 2 and had serious health issues (duh). Eat too much of any one thing, you'll get sick for sure, but the article listed the garbage in McNuggets and it was disgusting. Leftover chicken parts is probably the best thing in them.

After reading the article, my kid no longer eats McNuggets. A small victory.

Anyway, one fool state employee makes for good news but stupidity is universal. Extrapolating this to a grand government conspiracy is a stretch, I think.

Do you worship the government nipple?

Do you hold firm to the individualist's shaft?

(02-17-2012 12:10 AM)glacier_dropsy Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:11 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  Apparently that state worker has no ideas whats in a chicken nugget.

My kid would eat chicken nuggets left and right. Then I found an article about a British teenager who at nothing but McDonald's Chicken McNuggets from the age 2 and had serious health issues (duh). Eat too much of any one thing, you'll get sick for sure, but the article listed the garbage in McNuggets and it was disgusting. Leftover chicken parts is probably the best thing in them.

After reading the article, my kid no longer eats McNuggets. A small victory.

Anyway, one fool state employee makes for good news but stupidity is universal. Extrapolating this to a grand government conspiracy is a stretch, I think.

Do you worship the government nipple?

Do you hold firm to the individualist's shaft?

Your sex life isn't appropriate here.

(02-17-2012 07:26 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Your sex life isn't appropriate here.

My bad, man. I guess I was misled by all the talk of fresh warm milk and nipple worship.

Getting back on track, I kind of agree with BearcatMark. The original article is a lot like the board room meeting in Robocop where ED 209 oversteps his bounds and brutally kills the OCP executive, even though he had already put the gun down. But had it not been for that moment, the robocop program never gets off the ground, so I'll keep my eye out for the silver lining part of this story that I am sure is soon to come.

(02-16-2012 07:53 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(02-15-2012 01:52 PM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  It's not just the Federal Government that's saying it, it's every scientific organization in the world that has studied raw milk. The risks associated with raw milk far outweight any potential benefits in regards to asthma or allergies. Some of the pathogens found in raw milk are pathogens with a high virulence that can serious diseases like renal failure and even death, conditions far more serious than asthma or allergies.

Nobody is forcing you to buy or use it. Feel free to educate the world about your position - if everyone agrees, there will be no buyers and nobody will sell it. No laws necessary and as noted many states and countries feel that way.

Quote:Furthermore, the studies that posited a link between allergies and raw milk are considered to be extremely inconclusive because it is possible and highly likely that the resistance to allergies is due to fact that many raw milk drinkers spend a large amount of time directly interacting with animals, which is known to increase allergy resistance.

For someone so adamant that your position must legally be everyone's position, you seem very sketchy and/or slanted on your version of "facts". Per a very recent (2011) large European study, they've gone so far as to identify the specific protective factor destroyed by pasteurization: "The protective effect was linked to so-called whey proteins in the milk, such as BSA and alpha-lactalbumin."

Kids who drink raw milk have less asthma, allergies

Does a 41% reduction in your kids' odds of developing asthma (a serious and potentially fatal illness; along with a 50% reduction in hay fever and the taste factor) outweigh the undisputed risks? Maybe not to your or your family. But why can't everyone decide for themselves just as they do everyday on a variety of issues that involve risks from hygiene to sports to transportation. Who are you to decide for everyone?

Quote:There is a huge difference between other raw foods and raw milk which can be fatal to both humans and animals.

There is a risk with many things including raw foods other than milk - and you are not informed if you think those can't be fatal as well. Who are you to decide for an informed public where they MUST draw their lines?

Quote:Of course nobody is forced to buy or drink it, but the reason interstate sales must be banned is that such travel of raw milk puts livestock and humans at risk through contamination, even if livestock and humans are not buyers or consumers of raw milk.

I don't follow your logic about how crossing a state line magically changes things (aside from the overreach of federal law). How much did we taxpayers spend on this 2 year investigation including federal prosecutors and court costs? Why are the Feds afraid to release that info? All so they could put a small family business out of commission. Talk about a waste of money. For the last time: If you don't want raw milk, be like me and don't buy it! People should be able to decide for themselves what milk they want.

Before moving into corporate world I was a biomedical researcher. I'm fully aware of risks and benefits of various raw foods. In fact, one of my immediate family members died due to possible food contamination. But as CDC says in article you posted, "While it is possible to get foodborne illnesses from many different foods, raw milk is one of the riskiest of all."

I've never said that I believe the government should be able to decide what someone puts into their own bodies but I am against any movement of dangerous foods beyond a local community. An interstate sale of raw milk qualifies as a real public health hazard. The contaminants in raw milk can be spread in a variety of ways: Human or animal feces (where bacteria exits body), human cross contamination from soiled clothing or shoes, and animal vectors such as insects or rodents. It's someone's right to consume raw milk, but transporting such a potentially deadly substance anywhere beyond their immediate surroundings (i.e. their farm) should not be allowed.

Another point to consider is that serious diseases from raw milk almost always occur in young children, infants, or pregant women. These children are often too young to make conscious decision of whether consuming raw milk is worth the risk.

In regards to the European study cited above, here are some of author's own words from actual study.

"Prospective analyses need to confirm the results of this cross-sectional study, and further analyses are needed to determine the specific compounds underlying the epidemiologically observed inverse association of farm milk consumption with atopy and hay fever."

"Given the cross-sectional design of the study and the restriction to viable microbe determination, the results need to be interpreted with caution. We cannot determine how representative current levels of microbes are for the long-term exposure of children, and we cannot preclude that repeated consumption of raw milk since infancy might influence the developing gut flora and interact with the immune system of the host."

"The cross-sectional design of the study, the lack of fatty acid measurements, and the limitations of the microbial analyses represent the main limitations of the present study." "On the basis of current knowledge, raw milk consumption cannot be recommended because it might contain pathogens."

It's been known for a number of years that there may be an association between certain milk proteins and allergy resistance. However, this has not been defintively proven. One of the difficulties is enumerated in a position paper from two of the authors of the European study:

"Unfortunately, the knowledge of the mechanisms of whey protein-based immunomodulating peptides is limited as these compounds are difficult to characterize and also due to the absence of clinical data on the physiological effects.

bumping in case bearhawkeye missed my response. I was busy and posted on this a few days late

Bump

I'm surprised Bearhawkeye has still not responded to this thread. I'm assuming you've read my response since you've posted in threads both above and below this thread in the same forum after myself bumping it twice.

As I noted in my response on page 3, not once in this thread did I say I was against someone being able to choose to drink raw milk, only that I was against interstate sale of raw milk. After being asked why interstate sale troubled me, I listed the reasons. I also quoted the authors of the European study detailing the severe limitations of this study.

"Prospective analyses need to confirm the results of this cross-sectional study, and further analyses are needed to determine the specific compounds underlying the epidemiologically observed inverse association of farm milk consumption with atopy and hay fever."

"Given the cross-sectional design of the study and the restriction to viable microbe determination, the results need to be interpreted with caution. We cannot determine how representative current levels of microbes are for the long-term exposure of children, and we cannot preclude that repeated consumption of raw milk since infancy might influence the developing gut flora and interact with the immune system of the host."

(03-03-2012 12:08 AM)chicago bearcat Wrote:  I'm surprised Bearhawkeye has still not responded to this thread. I'm assuming you've read my response since you've posted in threads both above and below this thread in the same forum after myself bumping it twice.

As I noted in my response on page 3, not once in this thread did I say I was against someone being able to choose to drink raw milk, only that I was against interstate sale of raw milk. After being asked why interstate sale troubled me, I listed the reasons. I also quoted the authors of the European study detailing the severe limitations of this study.

"Prospective analyses need to confirm the results of this cross-sectional study, and further analyses are needed to determine the specific compounds underlying the epidemiologically observed inverse association of farm milk consumption with atopy and hay fever."

"Given the cross-sectional design of the study and the restriction to viable microbe determination, the results need to be interpreted with caution. We cannot determine how representative current levels of microbes are for the long-term exposure of children, and we cannot preclude that repeated consumption of raw milk since infancy might influence the developing gut flora and interact with the immune system of the host."

Although I do try to answer any direct questions I am asked in a thread (unlike others I might add), I have made an effort to just let some debates go once I've essentially make my point and in the absence of a compelling reason to respond. I assume people understand this isn't because we have reached an agreement. Instead it is a choice to exit a discussion that doesn't seem to be going anywhere in lieu of just repeating what has already been said or as a silly attempt to get in the last word. I try to leave those methods to others.

But since you are clamoring for a response from me (although I'm not sure to what exactly - I've never said raw milk was risk-free in fact I've said the opposite repeatedly):

I find your explanation of why you presumably oppose intrastate legislation while supporting interstate regulation (aside from jurisdiction issues) to be extremely weak and ignorant of geographical realities. Why do you consider it acceptably safe for an individual in Eureka, CA to drink raw milk from cows in Oceanside, CA but not for a person in Cincinnati, OH to drink raw milk from Covington, KY as an example? The risks to non-drinkers of raw milk from the interstate transport (which obviously can be much shorter than intrastate transport as noted above) of raw milk are clearly negligible and it is laughable to assert otherwise. It's raw milk - not radioactive nuclear material.

Of course, I'm not even sure if that is your position as at another point you seem to only support the right to drink raw milk on the farm itself in the presence of the cows from which it was milked.

chicago bearcat Wrote:transporting such a potentially deadly substance anywhere beyond their immediate surroundings (i.e. their farm) should not be allowed.

Again this isn't nuclear material. Yet you are adamant that this tiny window (actually more of a peephole) of immunity to drink raw milk that you would allow proves you are not trying to legislate what people drink. It is very difficult and frustrating to respond to you when you zigzag from vague explanation to splitting absurdly minute hairs.

You also fail to tell me exactly why the line should be drawn between raw milk and other potentially "risky" (I guess I should make that "deadly", right?) raw foods in terms of legislation. Why are citizens "permitted" (per your mentality) to make their own decisions about purchasing raw eggs, chicken, pork, green onions, spinach etc. but unable to make their own decisions about purchasing raw milk (which humans have been drinking since the 8th or 9th century BC btw)? And why the focus on supporting legislating the ingestion of raw milk while not clamoring for legislation about other "risky" human behavior from football to skateboarding to base-jumping to sex - especially unprotected sex (possibly also involving ingestion btw) between individuals - especially including sex with individual(s) known to have a sexually transmitted disease.

You seem to be under the misconception that I am advocating that you drink raw milk. I'm not. In fact, I support your right to refuse to drink it. I even support your right to use facts to encourage others to not drink it. I applaud you for apparently backtracking from your original claim that the studies showing possible benefits were all flawed because they didn't account for contact not-involving drinking raw milk - even if you haven't been straightforward in admitting you were wrong. I am dismayed at your failure to clearly admit that there is scientific evidence (as noted in the study above) that there may be benefits (in addition to the clear risks which I readily acknowledge) of drinking raw milk:

Quote:...Raw-milk enthusiasts have a different perspective. They insist that along with the bad pathogens, heat-treating milk destroys beneficial bacteria, proteins and enzymes that aid in digestion. Some people with a history of digestive-tract problems, such as Crohn's disease, swear by the curative powers of unpasteurized milk. Others praise its nutritional value and its ability to strengthen the immune system. "I have seen so many of my patients recover their health with raw milk that I perceive this as one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume," says Dr. Joseph Mercola, an osteopathic physician and (edit: NYT Bestselling) author...

I object to your logical inconsistency with regard to interstate/intrastate (aside from jurisdiction) and/or outlawing it unless done with the cows themselves at their home/farm. (Do you support legislating against interstate travel of individuals to drink raw milk at a farm in a different state? Can they bring any home with them in a cooler?) I object to the cost and efficiency of enforcing such a law and note with dismay your and especially the Federal government's refusal to address the issue. I object to the unexplained subjectivity in choosing to regulate this issue but not others (what are your standards for federally legislating risk and more importantly why?). In sum, I object to the federal government and its advocates forcing decisions upon people perfectly capable of making them on their own.

I'll again leave it at that unless you provide me with a compelling argument to re-consider.

I haven't forgotten about thread but will respond when I have time. My only brief time off was to watch game at MSG but will remain in NYC for next week. I'll probably be back on board then.