It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Janky Red
 


dude, no one is disputing that they sell it.

they are doing so ILLEGALLY

I will guarantee they do not have a license. If you call and ask if they have a license to distribute raw milk, they will probably lie. I know I would at least.

The bacteria requirements for the sale of raw milk are so low that it is impossible to get a license to sell it legally.




posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


My argument? Your the one who brought it up!


If someone isn't doing something that hurts someone or damages their property, it shouldn't be illegal.


Raw milk CAN hurt people. THAT IS WHY IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not saying if you drink it, you're going to implode and kill half the population. It CAN harm, which is an unnecessary risk when you consider they can do it the legal way without conflict


If people are voluntarily engaging in a private exchange of goods and services, the State has no business telling them how they must conduct that transaction.

If someone is hurt, they can sue.


Oh, so I can legally transport bomb materials and hire someone that can do the necessary work next door to someones house in my basement? Of course after that I will detonate, and they could sue me...oh wait.



This is silly, milk is not a weapon of mass destruction. Jesus dude, why don't you just approve the banning of salt, pork, red meat, fast food, bike riding, car driving, skateboarding, being a kid e.c.t. We can all live in rubber rooms and be told what we may and may not consume. Good LORD.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Sorry but I agree with the OP title, we are truly too dumb to decide what eat.
Every day milliond eat at fast food places that put calories into us with almost no nutritional value at all.
We eat genetically engineered foods that used to grow fine with just a little loss but I guess in order to get a small percentage more harvest it is worth it to kill our fields of being able to sustain any other growth.
We poison our water supplies on purpose too.
So, ... ... ... when you look at it like that, we are to stupid to figure out what we should eat.
S&F op.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


My argument? Your the one who brought it up!


If someone isn't doing something that hurts someone or damages their property, it shouldn't be illegal.


Raw milk CAN hurt people. THAT IS WHY IT'S ILLEGAL. I'm not saying if you drink it, you're going to implode and kill half the population. It CAN harm, which is an unnecessary risk when you consider they can do it the legal way without conflict


If people are voluntarily engaging in a private exchange of goods and services, the State has no business telling them how they must conduct that transaction.

If someone is hurt, they can sue.


Oh, so I can legally transport bomb materials and hire someone that can do the necessary work next door to someones house in my basement? Of course after that I will detonate, and they could sue me...oh wait.


If raw milk was actually dangerous, the milk producers wouldn't sell it because they could be sued in civil court if the plaintiff could prove damages.

Its not dangerous.

Its illegal because the major dairy producers want it to be illegal, so they lobbied the CDC and government to make it illegal.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Were they hurting anyone?


Don't know. Do you know for a fact that they weren't?


should I be able to buy said raw milk if I desire?


I really don't care what kind of milk anyone buys so long as they understand the risks. If they can't meet standards though, then no I don't believe they should be able to sell it.


because if someone gets ill, that was THEIR CHOICE.


So a small child can choose to drink raw milk on their own? They go out to the store and decide for themselves that they're buying raw milk? If an adult buys raw milk and gets sick from e. coli, they're choosing to get sick from e. coli? Really? People actually choose to get sick from contaminated food?


And with that, I'm out. This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. Debate raw milk if you like, the store was shut down because they don't have a health permit and regardless of how clean something looks it isn't always free of harmful bacteria.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red
 


dude, no one is disputing that they sell it.

they are doing so ILLEGALLY

I will guarantee they do not have a license. If you call and ask if they have a license to distribute raw milk, they will probably lie. I know I would at least.

The bacteria requirements for the sale of raw milk are so low that it is impossible to get a license to sell it legally.


Sir you are the one with hard on about the legality

Follow your heart has been there since 1970 - They have 70 plus employees - its not a shack or an alley way


Whole Foods is a fortune 500 company, they sell raw cheese which is in the same class
as milk in the eyes of the "LAW". Whole Foods stopped selling the milk because it was more volatile and could open up the company to law suits. They still sell raw cheese -



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Remind me again... how many little kids died in China due to tainted milk from lack of regulation? Bet the Chinese mothers and fathers were damn glad they had the Govt. to back them up... oh wait, that didn't happen until after the fact. Whoops. So long little kiddies, sorry about that last glass of milk.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne


I simply asked for the source of your information.


I have reviewed the information that you supplied

and it appears that the infant death rate was reduced
due to MANY factors,

not specifically because of milk pasturization.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow
Were they hurting anyone?


Don't know. Do you know for a fact that they weren't?


should I be able to buy said raw milk if I desire?


I really don't care what kind of milk anyone buys so long as they understand the risks. If they can't meet standards though, then no I don't believe they should be able to sell it.


because if someone gets ill, that was THEIR CHOICE.


So a small child can choose to drink raw milk on their own? They go out to the store and decide for themselves that they're buying raw milk? If an adult buys raw milk and gets sick from e. coli, they're choosing to get sick from e. coli? Really? People actually choose to get sick from contaminated food?


And with that, I'm out. This thread has gone beyond ridiculous. Debate raw milk if you like, the store was shut down because they don't have a health permit and regardless of how clean something looks it isn't always free of harmful bacteria.



This is you're slant? Protect the children at the cost of a little liberty? You ready to back that up and support gestapo kicking in the doors of those who let their kids lick the raw batter out of the baking pan? You may like a 1984 style life, but I won't have it and neither will other people who care about complete freedom.

You know, a simple warning label would do the trick, you know, instead of armed regulation.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by SmokeandShadow]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


Small children don't decide to do anything on their own.

Thus, your argument is ridiculous times ten.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Complete freedom? Can I have the complete freedom to run over conspiracy theorists?

If no, then it's not complete. It also means you believe in some amount of governance.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Whyhi]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
By the way, those of you who doubt my position that the major dairy firms lobbied heavily for this, read this paper published in 1984 by the st. louis fed.

They own Washington when it comes to dairy farm regulation.

If they wanted to make the sale of arsenic laced milk legal, they probably could.

These guys are in the same class of criminals as corn farmers. Epically looting the public and enacting all manner of favorable regulations, anti-competitive laws and subsidies.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by illusions
 


You asked me for proof that babies died of contaiminated milk, and that laws were passed to reduce infant deaths and deaths in general.

Did I not just prove it? I did.

Let me do it yet again with another source...

www.raw-milk-facts.com...



In 1889, two years before the death of his son from contaminated milk, Newark, New Jersey doctor Henry Coit, MD urged the creation of a Medical Milk Commission to oversee or "certify" production of milk for cleanliness, finally getting one formed in 1893 (5).


Source:

(5) Milk, W.B. Saunders Co., 1921. Heineman, P.G., (pp. 482-510)
(Available on Google Book Search)

 


Seriously, I don't even know what the heck you are debating anymore. Are you denying that children die from raw milk? Are you debating that laws were created to reduce death?

If you are, you are fighting a losing battle.

Now I am sick and tired of doing your research for you... go and do it yourself!

You prove the topic title is TRUE, every time you post.


[edit on 26-7-2010 by Unst0ppable0ne]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by SmokeandShadow
 


Complete freedom? Can I have the complete freedom to run over conspiracy theorists?

If no, then it's not complete. It also means you believe in some amount of governance.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by Whyhi]



Actually you might have freedom and rights mixed up. I have a right to life and am somewhat of a conspiracy theorist...you may not run me over for that reason. The purpose of government is to protect my rights...that is ALL.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


They lobbied so heavily back then that the laws are still taking effect now? Did they miss the other 39 states...?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Whyhi
 


Quit with the strawmen and other fallacies, they provide no argument.

As for the China example.

Please, tell me that you are not using China as an example.

Let me see, China purposefully kills off their people and you are going to use them as an example.

Drywall, toys, etc. Hell, I think because China cannot sell anything that is not poisoned, we should BAN THEIR PRODUCTS before any damn ban on raw milk.

Of course, not necessary to even ban Chinese products, if Americans had a brain in their head they would never buy anything from them. But that is what it breaks down to isn't it?

Americans are too DUMB to make their own decisions.

Come on and admit it. Everyone here that thinks these regulations are fine think Americans are idiots and you being an elitist, you need to protect the sheeple.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
First off, a license or permit is only proof you have paid a tax. For those of you who think that these things are PROOF that one is in compliance with morality need to look at drunk driving as PROOF you are totally wrong. A man with a DL, proof he paid the tax, has not proven he can drive well while drunk. A permit, license, or any other thing is nothing more than a tax!

Second. To those of you who think that this is a retail outlet, you are again wrong. It is a club, not anyone can go their. people are merely picking up things that they already own via membership. To those of you who think this is skirting the law, you are not correct - this is the law.

Third. To those of you that think raw milk can kill, you're just plain ignorant about nearly everything including what causes death.

Fourth. To those of you who are SURE that the FDA is right on everything and is there to protect you from the evils of foods I have one word for you - Vioxx. Why are the people who made, profited from this poison, not being raided by men with guns. These folks killed, maimed countless and they KNEW the product was unsafe. So why is no one calling for the taking down of the FDA as if failed to protect people from products made to kill. Oh, well maybe because that was a drug, okay, how many died from the wonderful food product melamine?

The point here is we are prisoners who cannot eat what we want, or even drink what we want, without the government telling you want to do. I understand many of you are so helpless that you NEED, even crave, agencies of people you don't know to protect you, but there are those of us who don't. If you want someone other than you to make sure your food is okay, then why don't you demand better education, finer moral understanding, instead you demand the "bad guys" just be killed after the fact.

All the food from this facility is sold that day, it is not left to rot as in your supermarket, it does not have the date changed, like your supermarket. All the food is poison free, the owner checks each farm. Nothing is frozen, or cooked, and isn't sold when it may appear bad. The same cannot, cannot, be said for main stream markets at all. Yet you trust a main stream market?



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Unst0ppable0ne
 


LOL!

The link that you just supplied is a PRO RAW MILK site. LOL.

Quote from site...
So that's where this site comes in. My goal with raw-milk-facts.com is to
help dispel the myths that have sprung up around one of Nature's most perfect foods.

The quote that you refer to from the site is regarding
what were called distillery dairies.

A very interesting read if you have the time. LOL.



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 



Drywall, toys, etc. Hell, I think because China cannot sell anything that is not poisoned, we should BAN THEIR PRODUCTS before any damn ban on raw milk.

Of course, not necessary to even ban Chinese products, if Americans had a brain in their head they would never buy anything from them. But that is what it breaks down to isn't it?


Agree and agree. However, this is a different argument/discussion. One you know well. Outsourcing. As for the tainted milk in China example, hey - is it any more outrageous than those already authored by posters? I'd say not.

Frankly, I could really care less what people choose to eat - however - I would expect certain "restrictions" on "public" domains such as daycare centers, schools, etc. because in those instances, parents do not choose what is fed to their children. At home, do what you will and take responsibility for what comes (either way) health or sickness.

[edit on 26-7-2010 by LadySkadi]



posted on Jul, 26 2010 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


They lobbied so heavily back then that the laws are still taking effect now? Did they miss the other 39 states...?


No, they are working with the FDA to get a national ban put in place.

www.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

I love this part of the article:


According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.


www.realmilk.com...


These figures mean that raw milk products are implicated in 92 illnesses per year, seven hospitalizations per year, and one death every nine years.

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.

While some illnesses due to raw milk may go unreported, the same is true for pasteurized milk and all other foods. In fact the CDC estimates that 76 million cases of foodborne illness occur every year, over 99.9% of which go unreported.

Cases of foodborne illness are investigated with a systematic bias against raw milk. Many outbreaks in which raw milk has been “implicated” are almost certainly attributable to another cause.


sounds pretty deadly to me.

better ban it.




[edit on 26-7-2010 by mnemeth1]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join