Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Food safety ?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Food safety ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:06:33 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Thousands of dead children every year due to diseases caught drinking raw milk. How high a price in dead children is too high for you to believe woo?


Source please.

Meanwhile:

http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/MAINE-COMPASS-Raw-milk-bill-testimony-misleading-.html

...A 2008 survey of 17,372 people conducted for the Centers for Disease Control found that 3 percent of the U.S. population drinks raw milk. That works out to around 12 million people today.

...Why have the FDA, the state Department of Agriculture and the dairy trade groups decided they must protect Americans from the dangers of raw milk?

I wanted to find out, so I went to the CDC foodborne outbreak and mortality online databases. I used the nine-year period from 1999 to 2007, since it made analyzing the two sets of data comparable.

My analysis shows that deaths from foodborne illnesses are a very small percentage of overall mortality in the United States. During this period, of the 21.8 million deaths in the U.S., only 165 deaths were attributed to foodborne illnesses, 0.00076 percent.

What is even more astonishing is that of those 165 deaths attributed to foodborne illnesses, only three deaths were attributable to milk, and those deaths all came from pasteurized skim milk, not raw milk.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:12:57 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Ummm... Isnt this state law?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:13:02 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

This thread isnt just about raw milk.


Sure, let's discuss the benefits of irradiating meat -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/interviews/schlosser.html

But before you start irradiating the meat, I think the meatpacking industry should be cleaning up its plants, because if you just start irradiating the meat, you're allowing them to essentially irradiate the feces on the meat.

Explain how irradiation hurts the good players.

... Right now, there are meatpacking companies who are doing a very good job at producing clean meat. And there are companies that are doing a very bad job. Irradiation levels the playing field. In a way, it punishes the companies who are spending the extra money, doing the testing in order to do things right.

I think irradiation is a way for this industry not to be forced to clean up its act. I don't think we should introduce something that helps the sloppiest companies compete against the really good companies.


Because ultimately you're sanitizing fecal material?

Well, when you're irradiating meat, you're irradiating it and everything on it, including the fecal material. I would prefer to have meat without fecal material, as opposed to meat with irradiated fecal material. ...


The meat industry says that meat should not be labeled "irradiated," it should be called "cold pasteurization." What does that mean? Why not "irradiation"?

I think that they're trying to avoid revealing what's actually been done to the meat. "Cold pasteurization" is a phrase that's been invented to cover up the fact that this meat has been irradiated. And, I think much more important, is if they're going to irradiate the meat, they should openly reveal that's what they're doing to it so that consumers can decide if they want to eat it or not.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:15:40 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Ummm... Isnt this state law?


Are you referring to the OP?

Here's state-by-state laws:

http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:23:54 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		First, what you revealed is why I dont eat hamburgers in most restaurants. The man and I eat burgers at places that grind their own meat, and all our meat we purchase for home use we buy from a butcher.

I also noticed that the article you provided states that

Schlosser is an award-winning investigative journalist and author of Fast Food Nation, a book about what he calls the "dark side of the all-American meal." Here, Schlosser talks about the conditions inside slaughterhouses and how they may promote the spread of pathogens throughout the meat supply. He says that today, certain fast-food companies -- not federal government agencies -- are the most rigorous testers of meat.

Thats a good thing yes?

Couple that with the problem that not all people report cases of food poisoning. Some people just associate it with a stomach bug or the flu. By not reporting, we truly dont know how bad a problem this may be.. or how bad it may not be... because the data isnt accurate.

As far as my question.... arent the raw milk laws State laws?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:43:32 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Thousands of dead children every year due to diseases caught drinking raw milk. How high a price in dead children is too high for you to believe woo?


Source please.

look into why the central park dairy in NYC was built in 1870 and go from there.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:44:31 PM   
tolovetolaugh


Posts: 648
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Thousands of dead children every year due to diseases caught drinking raw milk. How high a price in dead children is too high for you to believe woo?


Source please.

look into why the central park dairy in NYC was built in 1870 and go from there.


Telling her to look into it is not a source. Quit being lazy/talking out your....


_____________________________


That which yields, is not always weak. —
Jacqueline Carey (Kushiel's Dart)

I wrote a porn!
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3840531

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:53:50 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Thousands of dead children every year due to diseases caught drinking raw milk. How high a price in dead children is too high for you to believe woo?


Source please.

look into why the central park dairy in NYC was built in 1870 and go from there.


Telling her to look into it is not a source. Quit being lazy/talking out your....


I could of course have told her to take a course on public health or to go buy the textbook from the class I took but that seems much harder than looking into the various milk disease outbreaks in NYC in the mid and late 19th century in whatever way she finds easiest.

Now why don't you stay out of the matter unless you have something of substance to add?

(in reply to tolovetolaugh)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:56:31 PM   
sugarplum30064


Posts: 4
Joined: 11/21/2011
Status: offline 		I drunk raw milk for years. It is hard to find now, but so much taster than anything on the grocery shelf.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 4:59:10 PM   
tolovetolaugh


Posts: 648
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline 		Cause what happened in 1870 really has sooooo much relevance on today, even if you HAD any kind of source.

That sounds dangerously close to a "don't worry your pretty lil head about it"
That's never really worked on me unless someone had a way to back it up. In which case it becomes fun.


_____________________________


That which yields, is not always weak. —
Jacqueline Carey (Kushiel's Dart)

I wrote a porn!
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3840531

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:02:40 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tolovetolaugh

Cause what happened in 1870 really has sooooo much relevance on today, even if you HAD any kind of source.

That sounds dangerously close to a "don't worry your pretty lil head about it"
That's never really worked on me unless someone had a way to back it up. In which case it becomes fun.


http://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/1858-swill-milk-outbreak/
http://centralparkblogger.com/attractions/dairy/

Happy now?

(in reply to tolovetolaugh)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:05:11 PM   
tolovetolaugh


Posts: 648
Joined: 4/30/2008
Status: offline 		Yes. Yes I am. 

Come play me in scrabble now? I'm bored.


_____________________________


That which yields, is not always weak. —
Jacqueline Carey (Kushiel's Dart)

I wrote a porn!
http://www.collarchat.com/m_3840531

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:06:14 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If you try to claim things in a court room without being able to back it up, you'll be laughed out of the chamber.


I hope you are not implying that this is a good thing. To do so would also imply that only those of sufficient talent to argue with the pros are deserving of their rights. That could be considered a form of bigotry.

If I failed to prove my right to breathe this planet's air, the proper course of action would be to suffocate me.

Well when my baby needs milk and I want it from THIS PARTICULAR COW, and you tell me I can't have it you are doing exactly that. But yo could say no to my air and say "You must breathe the air out of this [tube or something], and you must comply. You are not allowed to dig a well and use the water out of it, nor even rain water, this has all been ruled in courts in the US. People with a clue are not at ease with this to say the fucking least.

It's not about how safe the milk is, or the shit in the OP. It's a matter of rights. The Bledsoes probably should have kept the whole affair private. Any advertising, hey, you know what ? Anyone who serves shit that hasn't been scrutinized by the government should have to put up a big warning sign. Believe me, it will not scare me away.

See people survived somehow without their fucking interference since long before we, or they were born.

Pardon me while I go read BK's post, I think I will respond.

T^T

(in reply to BanthaSamantha)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:21:17 PM   
LafayetteLady


Posts: 7683
Joined: 5/2/2007
From: Northern New Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

Yes, that explains why they're not allowed to sell to those people anymore...

However, it does not explain why they where told that they do not have the right to CONSUME the foods of their own choice, or produce those foods for their OWN consumption.


Actually, it does explain that very clearly in the decision. The arguments that they put forth did not support their claim. Using the right to an abortion, to view porn and to engage in consensual sex, don't speak in any way of supporting their claim regarding the cows or the food.

When a Plaintiff uses case citations, they must be RELEVANT to the case at hand. Those listed above have absolutely nothing to do with the argument they set before the court and as such, the court deemed their arguments "underdeveloped" and refused to grant summary judgment.

Denying summary judgment means that they must proceed to trial and prove their case. Based on the little information you provided, the Plaintiff's are lucky the court didn't dismiss their claim entirely and instead are giving them a chance to actually make a legitimate legal argument.

(in reply to Ishtarr)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:41:44 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

Happy now?


Yes! The problem was lack of refrigeration, improper feed, and corruption by the milk producers and city officials.

You saying raw milk is unsafe is like saying toothpaste is unsafe - it wasn't the toothpaste that was the problem, it was the diethylene glycol used as a lower-cost sweetener and thickening agent.

"Swill milk" is not what I think of when I think of raw milk - are you to trying to make a case that today's raw milk producers are using mash, flour, and plaster?

Your link: http://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/tag/1858-swill-milk-outbreak/ :

Before pasteurization, milk—often brought in from upstate farms in warm wagons—routinely spoiled, sickening children.

And if they drank “swill milk,” it killed them. This rotten milk came from cows kept in city stables next to whiskey distilleries.

The cows were fed mash from the distilleries rather than grass, and the milk they produced was bulked up with flour or plaster to make it appear fresh.

It wasn’t. An 1858 swill milk outbreak—aided by corrupt city officials whose sympathies lay with dairy owners—killed thousands of city residents.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 5:51:12 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

certain fast-food companies -- not federal government agencies -- are the most rigorous testers of meat.

Thats a good thing yes?


Sounds like they need to test most rigorously because their suppliers are the sloppiest. I haven't had a fast food burger since watching "Food, Inc" some years back; the ammonia plant especially gave me the chills. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?pagewanted=all

quote:

As far as my question.... arent the raw milk laws State laws?


Yes. Not sure where you're going with that.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 6:39:21 PM   
BanthaSamantha


Posts: 261
Joined: 8/7/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

quote:

If you try to claim things in a court room without being able to back it up, you'll be laughed out of the chamber.


I hope you are not implying that this is a good thing. To do so would also imply that only those of sufficient talent to argue with the pros are deserving of their rights. That could be considered a form of bigotry.

If I failed to prove my right to breathe this planet's air, the proper course of action would be to suffocate me.


This is not a case of people claiming they have rights and having them stomped on because they lacked the talent to make arguments in their favor. These people had lawyers of their own, pros of their own. They made a claim that their lawyers could not support and they lost; there is no bigotry in that.

And I'll reiterate, this ruling simply means that the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim; it does -not- mean that the opposite of their claim is true. That's not how the law works, nor is it how court rulings work.

quote:

See people survived somehow without their fucking interference since long before we, or they were born.


And America has only been around for a little over 200 years; you might have liked the dark ages before then, but I would never want to go back to that. If you don't like this nation and its rules, you're free to lobby your representative to make an ammendment that eliminates the constitutional power to regulate commerce.

< Message edited by BanthaSamantha -- 11/25/2011 6:42:58 PM >

(in reply to Termyn8or)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 6:45:14 PM   
mons


Posts: 2400
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline 		termyn8or

Your so mistaken  by the connection  of food Safety and the KKK niether has
a thing to do with the other as to my memory!   Is there a case in the pass that had this come up?
Please correct me if i am wrong!  i had watched a Docum: on the leader of this group he alsowas a nut case1

Also the KKK was indeed found to attack and murder by lyching or buring alive
americans of color for so long! This was right after the Civil War and President
Linclon  ( free the slaves)  he did not want too by he had to!
I read so much on history of the Civil War plus \slavery in the south,
i never heard that  KKK used for any other reasons but
to harm other of people of color!  They are still active and along the White Socialist movement
and the Neo Nazi's still is use for bias against jewish, african ameican and anything
else whom is not white or the right religion to this day!

I can tell you there is nothing like being called the n word the hurt is
'a monster and when i looked around to see whom they were speaking of,
they became enraged i had to run into a store for my safety! I do not care
how many young and dumb full of come singer's thinks it is okay to use this
word they have no ideal the dumb asses and what they make theirselves to be, damn fools again !
No matter it is a mess and this food thing is so bad


I understand too also that mushrooms over in the states are poison by in
other country they are nonposion!  The only difference is they are tow different
area of the worl!  so each year someone dies from poionous mushrooms or loses a
liver!

Now why is the raw milk so deadly when
farmer years ago drink milk from the cows,
is it a chemical thing within what they eat/?

When they erase some parts of history'
so many young people do not know
what has really happen to so many people
black and white!  This is something if this about
food safety how in the world did the kkk come
in to this? 

mons

(in reply to BanthaSamantha)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 6:58:55 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

certain fast-food companies -- not federal government agencies -- are the most rigorous testers of meat.

Thats a good thing yes?


Sounds like they need to test most rigorously because their suppliers are the sloppiest. I haven't had a fast food burger since watching "Food, Inc" some years back; the ammonia plant especially gave me the chills. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?pagewanted=all



But that comes from the same person you quoted. Are you now disputing him?

quote:



quote:

As far as my question.... arent the raw milk laws State laws?


Yes. Not sure where you're going with that.



No where really. I just find it... interesting... how some who believe in State's rights are complaining.. and I dont mean you.

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 11/25/2011 6:59:18 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Food safety ? - 11/25/2011 7:18:27 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
quote:

I just find it... interesting... how some who believe in State's rights are complaining.. and I dont mean you.





(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Food safety ? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.113