Pa. dairy’s raw milk is linked to listeriosis death

[HuckleB]

Source: The Detroit News

A Pennsylvania dairy that supplies raw milk around the country has been linked to two cases of listeriosis, one of them fatal, according to health authorities.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said one person in California and one in Florida became infected from raw milk in 2014. The Florida victim died.

Officials say the source is believed to be milk from Miller’s Organic Farm located in Bird-in-Hand in Lancaster County. Miller’s Organic Farm, which isn’t licensed by or inspected by the state agriculture department, doesn’t do retail sales but does business via mail order to a membership club.

...

Health officials said the source of the illnesses wasn’t known until January, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration informed the CDC that whole genome sequencing of Listeria bacteria from raw chocolate milk produced by the farm in November 2015 was genetically related to samples taken from two affected individuals. State and federal health officials said they were concerned that there might be further contamination of raw milk and raw dairy products distributed by the company.

Read more: http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2016/03/21/raw-milk-listeriosis/82080282/

---

[jpak]

1. There is a reason for pasteurization

[bigworld]

3. I've picked up fresh non-pasteurized milk from a farm in Lancaster

but I don't ever think I'd mail order it. I mean if you're gonna get non pasteurized milk you especially have to refrigerate it, pronto.

[jberryhill]

9. Right... mail order?

Unreal.

[Major Nikon]

15. There's also a reason for dairy regulation

Federal and state refusal to regulate raw milk pretty much insures there will be problems.

[yellowcanine]

30. Pennsylvania does regulate it. This dairy opted out. It is illegal to ship it across state lines in

any case. The USDA's position is that milk needs to be pasteurized and they do regulate pasteurized milk.

[Major Nikon]

31. That position simply ensures more people will get sick

If raw milk were regulated and available in every state, people would have local supplies.

It's kinda like the wingnuts' policy of abstinence that relies on teenagers to stop fucking.

[yellowcanine]

32. Not really a good comparison. The science is quite different.

People don't die from fucking. People do die from drinking raw milk. And there is a simple solution. Pasteurize the milk.

[Major Nikon]

35. Actually people do die from fucking and in far greater numbers

Do you know how many people have died from drinking raw milk? Here's a hint, you'll have to go back about 30 years to find the previous one.

Meanwhile pasteurization certainly doesn't insure you won't die from drinking milk, so your solution just got a bit more complicated. Not to mention we don't pasteurize other things like fresh fruit and vegetables, which also manage to kill people.

[AnnieBW]

37. Um... AIDS? Syphilis?

People can die from fucking. People can die from eating raw milk. People can die from walking across the street. People die all of the time. It's the only thing that we're guaranteed in life.

Frankly, if people want to risk their health drinking raw milk, great. Enjoy the e. coli, listeria, and other nasties in your moo juice. Even if I wasn't lactose intolerant, I wouldn't touch the stuff.

[Javaman]

41. I've been drinking raw milk for the past 6 years...

the dairy I get my milk from is inspected by the USDA every week.

This particular dairy supplies milk for Bluebell ice cream.

they recently tested high for listeria via the USDA.

They halted shipments until they passed.

they passed a week later and I got my milk.

The bottom line is: if you wish to drink raw milk, (which I might say is extraordinarily delicious), make sure you get your milk from a reputable dairy rancher who has a clean and well maintained facility.

Our rancher will allow us to visit their facility any day of the week. And we always ask them questions about their production methods.

I know more about were my milk comes from and how it's produced than the average person pulling the jug off the shelf a the local supermarket.

Knowing about my food and were it comes from. it's important to me and my families health.

there is zero reason why people shouldn't be able to get raw milk anywhere, it's really ridiculous why it's not more readily available.

And while pasteurization certainly has it's place, it's not always required.

If you read up on why it was so important in the 19th century it was because the majority of dairy production was done in cities with virtually no sanitation.

That's why it saves lives.

[FrodosPet]

44. Sex is fun, but deadly

STDs, jealous lovers, heart attacks, screwing in dangerous situations...

Lots of people lose their lives satisfying their libido.

[KamaAina]

2. Bird-in-Hand is right down the road from Intercourse

Looks like the customers got screwed.

[HuckleB]

4. Oh, goodness. Wow!

Sounds much more exciting than Boring, Oregon or Why, Arizona.

[bigworld]

5. [insert Blue Ball joke here] eom

[saturnsring]

14. well intercourse doesnt mean sex unless you add sexual to it

[jberryhill]

27. I usually do

That's like saying Betty Crocker mix isn't cake until you bake it.

[Orrex]

40. Well, here's how you can find out.

Walk into your local high school and tell the first administrator you see that you want to have intercourse with several of the students.

I'm sure they'll understand.

[Major Nikon]

16. Right down the Hershey Highway

[YOHABLO]

28. Can you just hear it: "I live in Intercourse". Yeah, well that would be nice.

[Thor_MN]

33. There are no direct flights from Intercourse, PA to Climax, MN.

[Orrex]

6. For God's sake, I hope that this wasn't GMO milk

[HuckleB]

7. It's worse. It's Monsanto milk!

[jberryhill]

10. They're Amish

So, I doubt it was either.

[HuckleB]

17. The Amish grow BT corn.

[jberryhill]

21. They run puppy mills too

I'm surprised the article says Miller's doesn't have a retail operation. Maybe that's with respect to the raw milk, but I'm about 40 minutes south of there, and they've been running a grocery store out of a barn there for ages. Lots of really good stuff - great cheese, fresh eggs, meats and produce - but also replete with every form of quack medical literature, "supplements", homeopathic remedies, and the whole kit and kaboodle of woo.

It's where I met and fell in love with Dr. Bronner's magic soap back in the day when the label included douching with it as a contraceptive!

[HuckleB]

24. Oh, goodness! (Re: Your last comment.)

I assume it's with respect to raw milk only, if they have a store, or we're looking at more issues with junior reporters. Or something.

[jberryhill]

26. Well that's why I said I don't know if they sell raw milk in the store

That and the fact that every third person in Lancaster County is named Miller. But given what I know about the general "tenor" of Miller's farm store, Bird-In-Hand is not that big a place. Conveniently located between Gap and Intercourse, and just down the road from Paradise. I shit you not.

I had just mentioned to my wife a week ago that we hadn't been up there in a while, and they certainly have a wide variety of interesting stuff. Their candies are really good too.

When the weather improves a bit, I'll probably take a bicycle ride up there for a look-see.

This be the place:

Miller's

[jberryhill]

8. Shipping raw milk from PA to CA and FL?

Oh, what could possibly go wrong?

[Archae]

11. A few farms here in Wisconsin want to sell raw milk legally...

Sure thing, go back to the good old days, when all those people DIED from it...

[Major Nikon]

18. In Europe they sell it out of vending machines

[jberryhill]

22. Not to the general amusement or approval of regulators

http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-got-raw-milk-fans-in-europe-steaming-a-crackdown-on-their-vending-machines-1413858604

In Italy, regulators have cracked down on sales, suspending or shutting down machines that don’t meet exacting hygiene standards. Those that remain must carry big warning signs in red letters, advising buyers to boil their milk before drinking it.

Elsewhere, self-service milk machines have had it even tougher. In 2011, one popped up in the food hall of luxury London department store Selfridges, briefly sitting alongside designer cupcakes, Iberico hams and other goods favored by food fashionistas.

But the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency soured on the idea and intervened, ultimately launching a lawsuit against Selfridges and Stephen Hook, the dairy farmer behind the machine.

[Major Nikon]

23. As an emerging idea, I'm sure it's going to take a while for the regulation to catch up

However, regulated raw milk is widely available in Europe and always has been.

[FarPoint]

12. I grew up in Pittsburgh area, Butler CO. PA.

We only used raw Milk... Went to the dairy farm down the road every 3 days... Never a moment of concern.. In late 1960's.

[HuckleB]

13. Lots of people got lucky.

That doesn't mean it makes sense to make the gamble any more.

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/12/28/ive-never-understood-food-fads/

[Major Nikon]

20. Just because the nutters make stupid claims about the health benefits...

Doesn't mean raw milk is an unsafe product. There have been zero deaths and very few illnesses associated with the regulated sale of raw milk in the past 40 years or so. Even if you look at unregulated sales, the incident rate is ridiculously low.

Comparing raw milk to cooked milk is like comparing raw spinach to canned spinach. While canned spinach might be marginally safer, denying people access to fresh spinach is just not that smart. The same is true of raw milk.

[HuckleB]

25. Considering how little is sold, I'm not sure I buy the argument that the rate is low.

Perhaps, you are correct, but, for now, well, I'm not just seeing it.

http://www.livescience.com/18696-raw-milk-disease-outbreaks-cdc.html

same basic story... different source...

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2013/02/fda-health-canada-listeria-50-to-160-times-more-likely-in-raw-milk-cheese/#.VvCAu-IrIdU

it also looks like incidents are growing in places where it is legal.
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/12/study-number-of-raw-milk-outbreaks-on-the-rise/#.VvCBBeIrIdU

[Major Nikon]

29. It's important to understand what the numbers mean

Consider how many deaths have been attributed to liquid raw milk and raw milk products over the last 40 years or so. That number is very near zero even if you include completely unregulated bathtub cheese producers. So no matter how many people are getting sick, it's pretty evident that those who are don't have very severe symptoms or there would be far more deaths attributed to raw milk.

If you look at your sources, they identify Campylobacter, as the main culprit. Food poisoning from Campylobacter is extremely common. Somewhere around a million people in the US are affected every year from all sources. Lots more people are also getting sick from fresh produce, deli meats, commercially prepared foods, and lots of other things, yet you don't see the CDC encouraging people not to eat those things.

The problem with the CDC is they don't differentiate between regulated and unregulated raw milk sales. So it's worth comparing the US to the EU where outbreaks and illnesses are much lower, almost certainly because the EU regulates raw milk production far better.

Saying things like unpasteurized milk is "150 times greater" or more likely to cause an outbreak is meaningless. All pasteurized milk production is highly regulated. Pasteurized milk is also an extremely safe food because it's cooked to kill pathogens and often packaged in antiseptic packaging. Comparing that to an uncooked and more perishable product is just silly and presents a skewed and misleading picture. Comparing raw milk to other uncooked products like fresh fruits and vegetables makes a lot more sense, and I'm not convinced raw milk presents any greater risk.

All of this also assumes the status quo, which is very little regulation on the sale of raw milk. The CDC has absolutely dropped the ball on raw milk. Banning intrastate sales makes a little bit of sense because raw milk shouldn't be transported like pasteurized milk, but a better approach would be to regulate the times and temperatures used for transportation. The CDC also needs to establish meaningful standards like the EU has done so that states can implement meaningful regulation. Raw milk needs to be processed and distributed much differently than pasteurized milk and consumers need to know they can't use raw milk in the same way they use pasteurized milk. It needs to be processed under more sanitary conditions. It needs to be transported under stricter guidelines, and it needs to be consumed in shorter time periods.

So essentially the CDC is documenting their own self-fulfilling prophecy. By failing to properly regulate and educate consumers on raw milk, they just wish people would stop drinking it because of reasons or something. I don't want to get all big-agra conspiracy theory, but it is worth pointing out that cooked milk producers have a very strong trade association and a very powerful lobby all with the vested interest of propping up a declining cooked milk market in the face of a growing raw milk market.

[HuckleB]

45. You make a good argument, but you would have to provide data to convince me.

It's interesting to note how often Listeria is used in European humor. I have to wonder about the reason for that.

[Major Nikon]

49. I look at it the other way

The evidence that raw milk is unsafe is pretty lacking. Certainly there was a period of American history where raw milk was produced under extremely unsanitary conditions from cows with insufficient diets and fed to infants with predictable results.

To find another death from liquid raw milk, you have to go back to the mid 80's, and the one in the OP was from an unregulated Amish farmer shipping halfway across the country.

The data can be found in your own sources. There have been a few hundred sicknesses, virtually all mild. There were 73 hospitalizations over 6 years (12 per year) despite somewhere around 7 million people drinking raw milk on a regular basis. Don't forget these numbers include everything from state certified production to people making bathtub cheese. So in any given year you'd have a 1 in 500,000 chance of getting sick enough to go to the hospital from the regular consumption of all raw milk products (not just liquid raw milk). So you'd have to live to 250,000 before the odds tip in favor of going to the hospital over it, and as far as dying goes, you'd have better luck winning the lottery.

[HuckleB]

64. Come on, you know better...

[Major Nikon]

100. Know better than what?

I was using the very numbers you posted. I don't mind if you want to contradict me, but it would be helpful to know what you're trying to contradict.

[timstephens13]

19. .

Yes... but there is probably a much lower chance of the milk being contaminated in the future.

[Thor_MN]

34. 2960? You wouldn't have a spare 22nd century sports almanac by any chance?

[FarPoint]

36. I didn't catch that...

Have you ever heard the term, " fat fingers " using a smart phone phone? I fixed it for you...now you don't have to stress out.

[Thor_MN]

38. I was just hoping you could tell me who wins the next ten World Series...

Nothing ventured...

[hollowdweller]

39. There isn't any way of making raw milk totally safe.

I've been milking goats for almost 30 years and drinking the milk. I've never got sick from drinking my milk but I have gotten sick from drinking other peoples.

I'm probably immune to anything endemic to my herd and I don't bring in hardly any outside animals.

That said, a cow or goat lays down in the barn where it can get contaminated. So if there's even a microscopic speck left then there's a chance of it getting bacteria that will make you sick.

I think people should be able to drink raw milk. I mean people legally smoke pot and cigs, drink etc. However I think somebody that would give a young child raw milk is taking an un needed risk.

If you look, even a lot of these raw milk dairies that are VERY conscientious and go way above the standards demanded by the regs still have multiple outbreaks.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/02/123373/#.VvC0wnnD8-Y

[HuckleB]

46. This seems to be the reality from what I can find, in terms of actual science.

There are a lot of claims to contrary, but nothing that stands up against the reason we started to avoid the stuff in the first place.

[dembotoz]

42. at times it is good to have problems with lactose

[chernabog]

43. Dairy cows live a terrible life

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/cows-milk-cruel-unhealthy-product/

[HuckleB]

47. I'm sure they do.

But PETA is not going to get a click from me.

[chernabog]

48. Why not?

http://dairy.mercyforanimals.org

[Major Nikon]

50. Because they regularly promote nonsense

Not to mention they are complete hypocrites. In any given year PETA kills 85-95% of the dogs and cats they take in, most within 24 hours of being dropped off according to state regulators. Their "shelter" has no adoption hours.

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2010

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2011

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2012

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2013

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2014

https://arr.va-vdacs.com/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2015

[chernabog]

51. What nonsense would that be?

You're getting off topic anyway. The fact is that dairy cows have a terrible life.

[Major Nikon]

52. Do you need more examples than the 5 provided?

Kinda strange that you would ask the question and then accuse me of going off topic.

[chernabog]

53. They are a shelter of last resort.

What nonsense are you accusing them of promoting?

[Major Nikon]

54. The "shelter of last resort" is complete nonsense and has been well debunked

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

They take animals from people who drop them off just like any other shelter, and the people who drop them off do so with the belief that PETA will at least attempt to find them homes. The reality is that 90% of the animals they take in are killed within 24 hours

[chernabog]

55. Ok well

I guess you can't name any nonsense they promote.

[Major Nikon]

56. You can lead a horse to water...

[chernabog]

57. Are you trying to say Peta

Is responsible for animal deaths?

[Major Nikon]

58. Actually PETA says that

...in the reports they are required to file with state regulators.

[chernabog]

59. You don't think they do any good?

[Major Nikon]

60. You're getting off topic

[chernabog]

61. Can you give any examples of this nonsense

You claim? You haven't yet.
Do you eat animals? Are you responsible for the killing of animals?
Also, all of these documents and articles you have posted are over 3 years old. Do you have any recent nonsense to cite?

[Major Nikon]

62. Are you responsible for the killing of animals?

The latest document posted was for 2015, BTW.

[chernabog]

63. No I'm not.

So you claim peta is hypocritical yet you eat animals. Is that right?

[Major Nikon]

65. Possibly

If you subsist solely off mushrooms you grow yourself in your basement, then maybe. Otherwise I'm pretty sure you are responsible for the death of animals. In fact, I'd be willing to place money on it.

Whatever I do or do not do has exactly zero to do with whether or not PETA is a hypocritical organization. I'm not the one who equates pigs to children.

[chernabog]

66. Haha ok

Pigs are considered by animal behaviorists to be smarter than 3-year-old children, is what peta said. PETA and every other animals rights organization says the dairy industry is cruel, which it is. Are you going to try and dispute that fact, or just keep talking about peta?

[Major Nikon]

67. This is what PETA actually said...

"Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals."

You asked a question, I answered it. If you didn't want to discuss it, perhaps you shouldn't have asked the question in the first place.

[chernabog]

68. Did I ask you?

And what about that statement is nonsense? Are they not all mammals?
Keep drinking your milk and directly contributing to the suffering of sentient beings.

[Major Nikon]

69. This is getting old really quick

I told you what PETA said, you claimed they said something different, I corrected you with a direct quote. Whether or not you think it's nonsense is pretty much irrelevant to whether PETA has and does equate animals to humans. If that isn't nonsense, then PETA is guilty of mass murder. They don't get to have it both ways without being a hypocrite. If this is too hard to understand, I'm not going to draw you a picture.

Since you are so good at asking questions, here's some for you.

Do you think fruit and vegetable producers allow cute little sentient bunnies to eat their crops to their little hearts' content?

What do you think happens to all the thousands of "sentient beings" that live in grain fields when the combines come to harvest?

What do you think happens to all the thousands of "sentient beings" that live in cane fields when they burn them out prior to harvest?

And yes, I will still keep drinking milk and consuming livestock and I won't feel a bit of guilt. The next time you are munching on a carrot or head of lettuce, remember that the recommended "organic" method of rodent control is to feed them cement mixed with flour and sugar. I'll let you think about what happens next while you are on your self-righteous high horse.

[chernabog]

70. all I did was cite facts about the dairy industry.

If you have a problem with peta, that's between you and peta.

[Major Nikon]

71. I don't have a problem with that, nor did I ever imply as much

Strawman much?

[chernabog]

72. Well you started this whole thing so

[Major Nikon]

73. ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141385441#post48

[chernabog]

74. Yeah exactly

You felt the need to chime in because you supposedly have a problem with peta. You did nothing to refute the facts that I posted.

[Major Nikon]

75. I felt the need to chime in because you asked a question and I answered it

[chernabog]

76. Yeah but I didn't ask you.

If this peta thing is such a big deal for you, and you claim to care about animals, then quit exploiting them.

[Major Nikon]

77. I don't really care if you did or didn't

I don't take my posting orders from you, and you claim to care about animals, then quit exploiting them.

[chernabog]

79. Hahahaha

You do realize that all that soy grown in Latin America goes to feeding livestock right? You totally just shot yourself in the foot. Lol

[Major Nikon]

81. Wrong...again

just one out of many Latin America producers of consumer soy.

another

another

another

another

another

There's more if you like, but hopefully you get the idea, although I'm not confident you will.

Now are you going to admit "You totally just shot yourself in the foot"? ....again

I won't wait up, but please do continue to draw a bead on your own foot. Soon there won't be a dry eye in the house.

Cheers.

[chernabog]

82. Virtually all of the Soy grown

On earth goes to feeding livestock.
http://www.fao.org/agriculture/lead/themes0/deforestation/en/
http://www.soyatech.com/soy_facts.htm
http://gentleworld.org/as-we-soy-so-shall-we-reap/

[Major Nikon]

83. "You do realize that all that soy grown in Latin America goes to feeding livestock right?"

"Hahahaha"

"You totally just shot yourself in the foot. Lol"

[chernabog]

84. So instead of saying all the soy

I should've said 98% of the soy? Got it.

[Major Nikon]

85. So you only have to feel guilty over 2% of the animals you're killing

[chernabog]

86. Wtf are you talking about

Seriously? The soy I eat isn't grown in Latin America. You try to make some point and it just doesn't work out for you. If you really care about how soy is destroying the environment, you'll stop consuming animals.

[Major Nikon]

87. This one worked out pretty well, actually

You provided a great source of entertainment.

[chernabog]

88. So you just post things

That you don't really care about? You just like to start arguments I guess? That's what it seems like.

[Major Nikon]

89. You stole my line!

[chernabog]

90. Nope, sure didn't.

[OkSustainAg]

78. Pasturizing is easy.

Heat milk for a couple of minutes at 165 degrees easy.

[Major Nikon]

96. It's easy and cheap

Most milk in the US is now pasteurized at about 280F for 1-2 seconds. That's why the shelf life is longer today than it's ever been and cooked milk has a stronger cooked taste. Longer shelf life also means it can be transported longer distances which further consolidates production.

The reason large milk producers are afraid of raw milk is because the US milk market has been in a decades long decline while raw milk sales have been increasing. So while raw milk only represents a small segment of the market, it's growing while pasteurize milk sales are declining. Furthermore raw milk doesn't lend itself well to large scale production because it's far more perishable.

[Humanist_Activist]

98. Why would large milk producers be afraid if raw milk can't compete?

You said yourself that raw milk can't be mass produced or distributed like pasteurized milk nearly as easily.

[Major Nikon]

99. ...

[Humanist_Activist]

101. That's a contraction of the market, does it separate raw milk from pasteurized?

If raw milk is a niche market, and from what you said, it appears so, then the reduction in milk consumption isn't related to raw milk's increasing appeal within its niche.

I remember in the late 80s to 90s, they started marketing milk with "it does a body good" mostly in response to the falling market share, I don't remember those commercials encouraging customers to drink pasteurized milk only.

[Major Nikon]

102. I don't think raw milk is causing the reduction in pasteurized sales to any large degree

However, the sale of pasteurized milk is on the decline and has been for a long time. This means the milk industry is going to want to hold on to everything it can. There's no reason for them to target an ad campaign against raw milk because they already have the FDA, the USDA, and the CDC doing that for them. Not only that, the ad campaigns you mentioned, are largely paid for with federal tax dollars.

[HassleCat]

80. Why would you drink raw milk?

There is absolutely no benefit from drinking unpasteurized milk. Cow milk is not all that great for you in the first place, but I admit I do love it. I also admit I drank unpasteurized milk when I worked on a dairy farm in high school, but all 34 cows were personal friends of mine, and I knew they wouldn't screw me over.

[Major Nikon]

91. Why consume raw anything when you can get just about everything in a can?

It's considerably safer that way and nutritionally about the same.

[chernabog]

92. Is that what you do?

Or just tying to be clever

[Major Nikon]

93. Are you trolling me now?

Because it looks like you're trolling me now.

I've been trolled before and this is kinda what it looks like.

Welcome to the ignore list.

Just sayin'.

[chernabog]

95. No, I was asking a question.

[HassleCat]

94. Fresher does taste better

Vegetables straight from the garden are wonderful, although not necessarily higher in vitamins, etc. Canned and packaged food often contains too much salt and preservatives. When it comes to milk, the freshest is probably whatever comes from a nearby dairy, which may be difficult to find. You should be able to find milk from cows not treated with growth hormones, and most stores have organic milk, although I'm not sure what that means. The hypothetical, unproven benefit of drinking unpasteurized milk does not justify the risk.

[Major Nikon]

97. I agree there's probably no health benefit

But whatever additional "risk" that's involved is pretty slight, and the burden of denying people access to it should be on the government to prove the "risk" is significant, and as yet they haven't done so. 1 death in 30 years from a completely unregulated and illegally provided source does not constitute any level of risk that would justify denying access.

[HassleCat]

104. Depends on how you see the role of government.

If you expect government to do whatever it needs to to protect public health, then there will be regulations against selling unpasteurized milk. If you take a libertarian stand, then unpasteurized milk will be readily available, and people can decide whether or not to take their chances with it. Personally, I favor a ban on unpasteurized milk, since there is no benefit associated with it, and it presents the potential for health problems.

[Major Nikon]

105. I don't see the role of government as allowing what I can do

I see the role of government as prohibiting things that have a valid reason to prohibit. Whether or not there's a useful purpose for anything should be completely irrelevant to whether or not the government should prohibit it. If the potential for health problems is your standard, then the government should prohibit shellfish, deli meats, restaurant food, most fresh produce, eggs, poultry, and beef because all of those things have more potential for health problems than raw milk. Unless you want a daily ration of Ensure that's been government certified to be completely sterilized inside antiseptic packaging, pretty much all food products are going to have some degree of risk.

Even if you had the mindset that you want to government to tell you what you can and can't eat, does it not make the most sense for them to start with things that are already legal and many times more dangerous? Raw oysters are legal to sell at restaurants in every state of the union and the death rate for their consumption is around 3,500 times greater than liquid raw milk. Now certainly there's no benefit (other than alleged sexual enhancement) to eating raw oysters and they certainly present the potential for health problems. Personally I enjoy eating them from time to time and I think it would be monumentally stupid for the government to ban them. Multiply that monumental stupidity by 3,500 and you start to get the idea how stupid it is to ban raw milk.

[HassleCat]

106. Apples and oranges

Literally. There are no shrimp but shrimp. If there were pasteurized shrimp, we could ban unpasteurized shrimp. Same for raw oysters, eggs, chicken, pork, beef, eggplant, cabbage, etc. Unpasteurized milk is not necessary because it tastes the same, and has the same food value, as pasteurized milk. Therefore, the government has decided, quite rightly I think, to prevent the sale of unpasteurized milk. We do regulate and inspect all those other foods, and the facilities that process them. If unpasteurized milk offered something we couldn't otherwise get, other than the fact it's not pasteurized, you would have a point. Of course, you do have a point in terms of individual liberty, but that argument can be applied to anything with any risk threshold. Motorcycle helmets are a good example, and we see how different states have different ways of balancing personal freedom against risk. I really wouldn't care about unpasteurized milk, except that unsuspecting consumers might buy it thinking it carried no more risk than pasteurized milk.

[Major Nikon]

107. Have you ever drank unpasteurized milk?

It does not taste the same. It isn't even close. Proteins are denatured and the lactose caramelizes during pasteurization. Non-pathogenic bacteria and yeasts are killed along with pathogenic bacteria which definitely affect taste. Pasteurized milk is also homogenized which also makes a big difference in taste and texture. If you go to France, sample some of the cheeses made from unpasteurized milk. They are infinitely better than cheeses made from pasteurized milk. That's why the only way you can get certain types of cheeses that don't taste like shit in the US is to find someplace where it's legal to produce and sell them, or buy your own cow or goat and make it yourself. Pasteurization quite literally cooks the milk and it tastes different just like anything else that's cooked vs raw. There is pasteurized shrimp, oysters, chicken, pork, beef, eggplant, cabbage, etc. Cooking is the application of heat to food over time which is exactly what pasteurization is. The only difference is pasteurization is essentially a recipe which dictates how much heat and time is required to achieve a certain desired level of pathogen reduction. I pasteurize my own eggs at home for recipes that call for uncooked eggs. All you need is a method to precisely control temperature and a timer.

Motorcycle helmets are an example of the mitigation of a known risk. I would never suggest whatever risk is associated with raw milk (however slight) shouldn't be mitigated in the form of regulating how raw milk is processed, packaged, distributed, labeled, and stored. In fact, the biggest reason you have problems with raw milk is because the government in many cases refuses to regulate it. So you have people literally making cheese in bathtubs and Amish farmers shipping it across the country, both of which are recipes for disaster. I would also never suggest that the public isn't educated about the known risks associated with raw milk in the same way warnings are issued for things like raw oysters and sushi. Anything uncooked carries a greater risk than things that are cooked all other things being equal. The application of sufficient heat over time destroys pathogens. That's about as basic as microbiology gets.

[Sunlei]

103. possible,they sure are large with a lot of "Partners" selling online.Looks good though, I registered

Here's a link to price list, they even sell camel milk and kirfer milk drinks, sheep butter/cream, meats, cheeses.

http://www.mootoyou.org/services.html (This is an online "Partner" to the Miller Farm.)

price list for dairy, there's the suspect chocolate milk on the bottom. Perhaps shipping delay is a problem with raw foods?

RAW COW’S MILK & DAIRY


Milk - $4.50/hf gal, ($8.00/gal co-ops only)


Milk in glass bottle - $7.00/hf gal w/ handle,


$11.00/gal no handle – co-ops only


Cream, heavy in glass bottle - $8.50/pt, $14.50/qt,


$28.50/half gal


Cream, heavy - $7.50/pt, $13.50/qt, $26.50/3 ½ lb,


$32.00/5lb


Cream, light in glass bottle - $7.50/pt, $13.00/qt,


$24.00/half gal


Cream, light - $6.50/pt, $12.00/qt, $20.00/hf gal


Sour Cream - $8.00/pt, $14.50/qt


Crème fraiche - $8.00/pt, $14.50/qt


Buttermilk - $2.00/quart


Buttermilk, cultured - $2.50/quart


Colostrum, first - $10.50/pt, $19.50/qt


Colostrum, regular - $4.00/pt, $7.50/qt


Whey - $2.00/qt, $2.75/hf gal


Mild kefir - $3.00/pt, $5.50/qt


Regular kefir (mixed mild-strong) - $3.00/pt,


$5.50/qt


Strong kefir - $3.00/pt, $5.50/qt


Kefir grains – strong $2.50/tsp, mild $4.50/tsp


Yogurt - $2.50/pt, $4.50/qt


Greek Style Cow Yogurt (plain, maple) - $5.00/pt,


$8.50/qt


Cottage cheese – w/o cream $4.00/pt, w/ cream


$4.50/pt


Cream Cheese – $5.00/8oz, $9.00/lb


Cheese Spread - $5.00/8oz, $8.50/lb


Eggnog - $6.50/qt


Butter, unsalted - $7.75/8oz, $12.50/lb


Butter, salted - $8.00/8oz, $13.00/lb


Butter, cultured, unsalted- $8.50/8oz, $14.50/lb


Butter, cultured, salted- $8.75/8oz, $15.00/lb


*Chocolate Milk - $6.50/ ½ gal., $12.00/gal.