It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


You Are Too Dumb To Decide What To Eat

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:23 AM

Just goes to show that the FDA cares about even a 0.4% cause of food illness cases. I love these people. Bring out dem guns, show those hippies and their unsafe food who's boss. Lock and load, boys.

FYI I am indeed a disinfo agent and a sheep of the FDA. Their regulations gave my dad a job (and thus paid for my education) and now that I too am in biotech they support my industry through quality control... which inevitably drives up prices and prestige. So I'm all for FDA Martial Law. If only it was legit FDA guys instead of police acting on their regulations. v.v

We all need to jump on the genetically modified bandwagon anyway, so the argument over spilt milk (har har har) is moot.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

All that being said, I don't care if people drink raw milk, but if they give it to their son or daughter and the kid dies, that's negligent homicide. Just like foregoing vaccinations or medical procedures that would have saved their kid's life.

I hope they can live with that.

That's the most outrageous crap I've read yet. And your sources are nothing but junk fear mongering psuedo-science, unlike the published medical journal articles on the subject contained in the report I linked (which of course you didn't bother to read beyond my quote before commenting).

So I guess I'll have to quote some more since you didn't actually read it.

The FDA’s anti-raw milk PowerPoint presentation consists of two main sections. The first section looks at 15 outbreaks of various foodborne illness that the FDA claims were caused by raw milk. The second section debunks a number of “myths” about the safety of raw milk and the effect of pasteurization on raw milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation’s (WAPF’s) response examines each of the claims made by the FDA to uncover the bias in studies purporting to show inherent dangers in consuming raw milk, and substantiates in the scientific literature most of the FDA’s so-called “myths.”

Section 1: “Outbreaks”
Biased Studies Fail to Indict Raw Milk

As shown in the table below, all of the 15 reports associating outbreaks of foodborne illness with raw milk that the FDA cites are seriously flawed. Not one of the studies showed that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak.

Either No Valid Positive Milk Sample or No Valid Statistical Association
14/15 (93%)
No Valid Positive Milk Sample
12/15 (80%)
No Valid Statistical Association with Raw Milk
10/15 (67%)
Neither Association nor Milk Sample
8/15 (53%)
Findings Misrepresented by FDA
7/15 (47%)
Alternative Explanations Discovered but Not Pursued
5/15 (33%)
No Evidence Anyone Consumed Raw Milk Products
2/15 (13%)
Outbreak Did Not Even Exist
1/15 (7%)
Did Not Show that Pasteurization Would Have Prevented Outbreak
15/15 (100%)

The Failure of Pasteurization
The most important flaw in the reports that the FDA cites is that none of them generates any evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak. In reality, pasteurization is not in any way a foolproof means of eliminating pathogens. In addition, many organisms can contaminate milk after pasteurization. The production of cheese or other processed dairy products allows additional opportunities for contamination. Pasteurized milk may actually be much more dangerous than raw milk.
Comparing Raw Milk to Pasteurized Milk

Between 1980 and 2005, 41 outbreaks were reported to the CDC attributing 19,531 illnesses to the consumption of pasteurized milk and milk products. This is 10.7 times the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.

From these statistics, it is clear that pasteurization offers no guarantee of safety. We cannot, however, determine from them whether commercial pasteurized milk is safer or more dangerous than locally produced and distributed, grass-fed, raw milk. There are three reasons for this: first, we have no accurate estimation of how many people drink raw milk; second, few of the reports attributing illness to raw milk offer sufficient evidence for the attribution; and third, most foodborne illnesses are never reported.
The FDA, CDC and USDA estimate that 0.5% of milk consumed is raw. This estimation relies on state government estimates for which no evidence has ever been presented and assumes that no raw milk is sold in states where its sale is prohibited. A more reliable phone survey determined that 3.2% of Californians drank raw milk in 1997, but this study was limited to one state. Because 93% of the reports associating raw milk
with illness that the FDA cites in this presentation either fail to generate a valid statistical association or fail to generate a positive test sample and 53% fail to generate both, the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk may be greatly exaggerated. Most importantly, however, the CDC estimates that over 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur in the United States every year, over 99.9% of which go unreported. Since the tiny portion that are reported is not a random sample of the total, there is no basis on which we could legitimately assume that the proportion of outbreaks reported for any given food in any way reflects the proportion of outbreaks truly caused by that food.

Clearly, however, if the CDC has recorded on average nearly 800 illnesses per year attributed to pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products, raw milk cannot be singled out as “inherently dangerous.” Moreover, since 100 % of the reports that the FDA cites fail to generate evidence that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak, let alone was necessary to prevent the outbreak, the risk of illness genuinely attributable to lack of pasteurization may approach zero.

Comparing Raw Milk to Other Foods
Between 1998 and 2005, there were over 10,000 documented outbreaks that contributed to 199,263 documented cases of foodborne illness. Raw milk was associated with 0.4 % of these cases. Again, there is no way to quantify whether any one of these foods is safer than another from this data, but it is clear from the data that there is no basis for singling out raw milk as “inherently dangerous.”

Putting It All in Perspective
There is clearly no basis on which to claim raw milk is more dangerous than other foods commonly consumed. Yet there are no FDA warnings about the inherent dangers of deli meats; there are no executive orders prohibiting the interstate transport of chicken; no state legislation banning the sales of spinach; no consumer education campaigns to eliminate the attendance of flea markets; and no farmers being fine and jailed for the sale of root vegetables. Producers and consumers of raw milk have a fundamental right to be treated fairly under the law that they are clearly being denied.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:51 AM
reply to post by mnemeth1

Yeah i'm gonna start a post saying "You're too dumb to wipe your own ass" "Your too dumb to understand culture" because i'm a horrible person like that, i like people being angry at my thread titles, i like causing a stir.

C ya

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 09:58 AM
People didn't understand where prohibition leads to. This is the path it leads to. The government is telling people what they can do with their own bodies.

That plus you have to fill out forms 8571a, and 9605-9615 forms a,b, and c. Get your bureaucrat on.

You wanted the police state because you were afraid of your neighbor. You got the police state because you are your neighbor. You are the criminal you wanted to imprison.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:01 AM
And someone had the gall to post on CNN forums last night a statement that the USA is different from Muslim countries because the USA is free.

I begged to differ.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:28 AM
Once upon a time there was no FDA. And getting food poisining was a lot more common than it is today. And sometimes it killed you.

That's why the FDA was created. That's why health inspections were created.

But, goodness, if the FDA is telling me somebody can't sell me food unless it's been inspected, evidently that means they're DICTATING what I can or can't take into my body.

It's all in the evil-Obama-liberal-scum philosophy.

If we just hadn't elected a dark skinned president...we'd be so much better off today.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:31 AM
LOL, just off of reading the OP I never knew this site attracted the amount of loosers that it did

[edit on 27-7-2010 by ge0089]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 10:58 AM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
A new law has been proposed to make it illegal to sell whole milk to children in the great safe state of CA.

AB 2084

SUMMARY : Creates minimum standards for beverages that are
served in licensed child day care facilities. Specifically,
this bill :

1)Requires licensed child day care facilities to:

a) Serve only one percent milk to children ages two or

b) Limit juice to not more than one serving per day of 100%

c) Serve no beverages with added sweeteners, either natural
or artificial; and

d) Make clean and safe dinking water readily available and
accessible for consumption throughout the day, particularly
with meals and snacks.

Thank god the State is there to keep our children safe from the horrors of whole milk and sweetened beverages.

Praise Mao, for you are too dumb to monitor what your child consumes.

We need a law like this for adults.

Ever though your sarcasm is a thick as real butter, given the ever increasing size of the American waistline?


[edit on 27-7-2010 by Helmkat]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by Stillalive

That is just ignorant...Obama has nothing to do with this. The law has been in place for years...why make it political? Now the only political aim for now would be for the people to change the law with their votes.

On a side note, Raw milk is legal in Oregon, wont help the southern californians, but perhaps you northerners can come across the border to Ashland and pick some up...we have alot of goats milk too

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:16 AM
Not read the rest of the thread (past the first 2 pages), as it seems to have degenerated into a virtual 'You suck, no you suck' fest.

Just wanted to say... There are probably a million places and situations in the USA where 4 armed officers, brandishing their guns, would come in VERY handy and do a lot of good.

A food establishment selling raw milk is not one of them

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 11:27 AM
I think the point hes making is to stop overreacting to stories like these. Stop being so damned paranoid. Be rational. The government is not going to be deciding what you eat anytime in the near future. Also, our economy is based on consumer demand; therefore, if you want to see bad things disappear from store shelves, stop buying them! Simple as that.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Throwback
I think the point hes making is to stop overreacting to stories like these. Stop being so damned paranoid. Be rational. The government is not going to be deciding what you eat anytime in the near future. Also, our economy is based on consumer demand; therefore, if you want to see bad things disappear from store shelves, stop buying them! Simple as that.

Yes, please be rational. Try to be more ike the armed police
that confiscated the yogurt with their guns drawn.
They were not paranoid at all. You can see how rational they are,
can't you?

The government is not going to decide what you eat anytime soon.
Clearly the government has not decided what the people of this co-op
are allowed to eat. You may eat anything you like as long as it falls into
the jurisdiction and approval of the FDA and Codex Alimentarius.

The economy is clearly based on consumer demand.
There is clearly no demand for raw milk.
I wonder why any natural food outlets even offer it???
There could not possibly be a demand for it???
Oh well. Who cares.
As long as I can still eat Cheetos
which the government tells me are safe, no biggie.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by snowspirit
And yet they would rather load people up with aspartame, high fructose corn syrup, soda pops, flouride..........:shk:

Packaged salads keep getting recalled for problems, Hopefully organic vegies aren't next.

They sure take the concept of "food police" seriously.

Well they have to in all 170+ countries around the world now
that we all live under codex alimentarius as of Dec. 2009.

My "favorite" part is how they plan to put 7 of the 9 persistent
poisons back in the environment.

That will help a great deal for rule #1 of the georgia guidestones.

Evil is as evil does...

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Connector

Well then, thank god we have armed police that can protect me from the dangers of raw milk.

I might make the mistake of choosing to drink raw milk on my own.

This might endanger my future productive tax generation capacity for the State.

Heaven forbid I get sick from raw milk.

Think of the tax dollars the State would miss out on due to my illness.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

Take your anti-everything blinders off for once.............tainted raw milk can KILL you. I guess you also like high levels of lead in the paint on your children toys too? Asbestos in the insulation perhaps? Some laws are there to prevent morons( and there are alot of them) from making a huge mistake.

hey buddy, care to inform me why cigarettes are still available for sale in mass quantities in this country?

oh yeah they are perfectly safe right?

I grew up drinking raw whole milk, as well as the community around me and I never got sick, and neither did anyone else I know.

hey, while were at it lets get the cops to inspect that mothers breasts are sanitized before feeding their babies because as you all know it only takes one microbe before someone gets sick.

and hey, lets take donuts off the menu because obviously those cops in the video looked like they could use a little less lard around their bellies.

The argument isn't whether or not something should be safe to consume, the argument is whether we have a choice to do it or not without some gun toting power tripping thug cop coming to my door telling my i cant drink that, it MIGHT be bad for me.

use your head and open your eyes before spouting off rhetoric, you are more than welcome to drink what you want, as should everyone else commenting here.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:22 PM

The large corporate dairy producers don't like cheap competition. Small farms could directly sell to the public or sell to local retailers for dirt cheap if they didn't have to process the milk.

This puts the large dairy producers in a bad position.

Hence, the large dairy producers lobbied heavily to shut down raw milk sales (not just in CA, but everywhere)

I don't buy that. Small businesses sell other food goods that "compete" with the larger distributors, and it's perfectly legal. Honestly, how many city-folk are going to drive to the burbs to pick up their milk? Convenience will always trump pure products, in the public's eye.

What you are saying is not exactly "wrong" per se.. the government obviously DOES pander to many big businesses, even very unhealthy ones. I'm certain the amount of illness and deaths due to cigarette smoking, is only exceeded by the donations from those companies that make them to our government.

A lot of these issues would go away, if big business and politics were not allowed to mix.

But as far as this goes... small farms are not going to "compete" in any way with large dairy corporations. They don't have especially, the means to transport their goods to the folks who needs them. Raw foods must be consumed sooner, and milk also must be kept cold. So again, 95% of residents (or closer to 99%) are not going to go out of their way to buy that "raw" milk anyway.

It's not just milk though. Heck, I went to a fast food Asian joint once, and tried to get red hot peppers (the stuff in oil) to go with my meal. They would not give them to me, although they were right there. They said they could not give away "raw food products."

Also to play devil's advocate, the MINUTE the FDA screws up on a policy, and a bunch of folks gets ill from a raw product or something along those lines, I'm certain we'd hear all about how worthless they are, and cry for change or someone's head. Like most agencies in the U.S., they cannot win for losing.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by ClintK

Once upon a time people pooped in outhouses.

Thank god for government or else we would all still be pooping in outhouses.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:32 PM

Real Milk Articles Google Custom Search Read this article in French! Raw Milk by Tom Cowan, MD As I'm sure most of you know by now, there are very few subjects as emotionally charged as the choice of one's diet. Sexual relations, marriage and finances come to mind as similarly charged subjects and, like diet, we are all sure we know all we need to know about each of these subjects. The subject of milk, as I have discovered during the past four years, when properly viewed will challenge every notion you currently have about what is good food and what isn't. The story of milk is complex and goes something like this.

Back in the preprocessed food era (that is before about 1930 in this country) milk was considered an important food, especially for children. Not only was there an entire segment of our economy built up around milk but, as I remember, each house had its own milk chute for the delivery of fresh milk directly to the house. It was unquestioned that milk was good for us and that a safe, plentiful milk supply was actually vital to our national health and well-being. It was also a time (now I'm referring to the early part of the century) when many of the illnesses which we currently suffer from were rare. As an example, family doctors would often go their whole careers without ever seeing a patient with significant coronary artery disease, breast or prostate cancer, whereas current doctors can hardly go one month without encountering a patient with such an illness.

Furthermore, as scientists such as Weston Price, DDS discovered, there were pockets of extremely healthy, long-lived people scattered about the earth who used dairy products in various forms as the staple of their diets — further evidence that milk and its by-products were amongst the most healthful foods man has ever encountered.

If we fast forward to the 1980's, we now find an entirely different picture. For one thing, there have been numerous books written in the past decade about the dangers of dairy products — the most influential being a book by Frank Oski, MD, the current chairman of pediatrics of Johns Hopkins University and perhaps the most influential pediatrician in this country. It's called Don't Drink Your Milk. In it Oski pins just about every health problem in children to the consumption of milk, everything from acute and chronic ear infections, constipation, asthma, eczema, and so on. Secondly, just about all patients I have now in their initial visit proudly announce that they have a good diet and that, specifically, they don't eat dairy (which they pronounce with such disdain).

One might well ask where the truth in this picture. Perhaps the experiments of Dr. Francis Pottenger in the 1940's can help to solve this mystery. In these experiments Dr. Pottenger fed one group of cats a diet consisting of raw milk, raw meat and cod liver oil. Other groups were given pasteurized milk, evaporated milk or sweetened condensed milk instead of raw milk. The results were conclusive and astounding. Those that ate raw milk and raw meat did well and lived long, happy, active lives free of any signs of degenerative disease. Those cats on pasteurized milk suffered from acute illnesses (vomiting, diarrhea) and succumbed to every degenerative disease now flourishing in our population, even though they were also getting raw meat and cod liver oil. By the 3rd generation a vast majority of the cats were infertile and exhibited "anti-social" behavior — in short, they were like modern Americans.

Since the 40's the "qualities" of milk have been extensively studied to try to find an explanation for these dramatic changes. Studies have shown that before heating, milk is a living food rich in colloidal minerals and enzymes necessary for the absorption and utilization of the sugars, fats and minerals in the milk. For example, milk has an enzyme called phosphatase that allows the body to absorb the calcium from the milk. Lactase is an enzyme that allows for the digestion of lactose. Butterfat has a cortisone-like factor which is heat sensitive (destroyed by heat) that prevents stiffness in the joints. Raw milk contains beneficial bacteria as well as lactic acids that allow these beneficial bacteria to implant in the intestines.

All of these qualities are destroyed during pasteurization. Once heated, milk becomes rotten, with precipitated minerals that can't be absorbed (hence osteoporosis), with sugars that can't be digested (hence allergies), and with fats that are toxic.

http://Raw milk has been used as a therapy in folk medicine — and even in the Mayo Clinic — for centuries. It has been used in the pre-insulin days to treat diabetes (I've tried it — it works), as well as eczema, intestinal worms, allergies, and arthritis, all for reasons which can be understood when we realize just what is in milk — such as the cortisone-like factor for allergies and eczema.

whole article here

The whole idea is to drive individuals out of the food sector, and give it all over to large corporate factory farms. In the old days, milk was delivered from a local farm right to your doorstep fresh. If it took two or three days to get to you it would be spoiled. Therefore, huge, faroff factory farms could not possibly get your business. Pasteurization merely allows spoiled milk to retain its appearance and smell, so you will still drink it even though it spoils in a day or two. Heating it up also happens to destroy all of the things about it that are good for you, rendering it useless.

How about that "irradiated" milk that has a shelf life of years somehow? Do you like that better? Don't you ever wonder how it can last for years like that without refrigeration? Obviously, you are too dumb to understand it, so just go by what big brother tells you is good. Raw milk, bad. HFCS, aspartame, flouride? Good. Shut up and drink your milk, and wash it down with a "diet soda". Good luck with that.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Throwback
I think the point hes making is to stop overreacting to stories like these. Stop being so damned paranoid. Be rational. The government is not going to be deciding what you eat anytime in the near future. Also, our economy is based on consumer demand; therefore, if you want to see bad things disappear from store shelves, stop buying them! Simple as that.

If you want intelligent and rational you are in the wrong place. Nothing just happens and its all a part of Obama, Bush, NWO or some other all powerful group that is slowing taking over the world with eathquake machines and by making unsafe milk illegal. Its all one big plot and they let us have the internet so we can all say whatever we want about it so they can get our names and put us in UN FEMA camps. In this place no one thinks about anything they just rage about things and tie it all to Obama and the NWO. Its amazing really how some people selling milk that could harm a kid and get in trouble for it is quickly spun into Obama bashing, NWO plots and the revelation we are slaves. Forget logic or facts just jump on and enjoy the ride. I comfort myself by telling myself most of these people are just having some fun posting crazy stuff and egging people on.

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:40 PM
it's illegal because raw milk producers are like the rest of us: money....
safety ?,heatl risk ?,pfff ! meuuuhney.

Anyway, Americans eats anything. Someone have to look out for them

[edit on 27-7-2010 by SSimon]

posted on Jul, 27 2010 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by MrSpad

Rat poison can harm kids.

Guess what? We don't ban it.

It is the parents decision to feed their kids raw milk. It is not your decision to make for them by using violent tax funded police actions to forcibly confiscate and shut down raw milk distributors.

You are demanding the State use raw milk drinkers money to shut down distribution of raw milk.

That is the definition of tyranny.

I suppose we should ban breast milk because that can be contaminated too.

Lets just remove womens breasts so they can't contaminate their kids with unpasteurized breast milk.

[edit on 27-7-2010 by mnemeth1]

top topics

<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in