IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New we is the gummint and we are here to help
http://www.wnd.com/i...iew&pageId=153133
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued.
snip
"You are only 'allowed' to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA's consent."

The Natural News report continued, "The state, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the state may do this for completely unscientific reasons – even just political reasons – all at their whim."
we pasturize milk for good reason, anthrax ecoli and all of the other goodness but if someone knowingly wishes to consume raw product, a posted warning should suffice like they do at saushi bars
If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New Almost right
we pasturize milk for good reason, anthrax ecoli and all of the other goodness

Better version: We pasteurize milk because current high-density factory farming methods create epidemics of E. coli and other goodness, and it's easier to require producers to follow specific practices than to actually test the milk and only correct the real problems.
--

Drew
Expand Edited by drook May 14, 2010, 09:39:09 AM EDT
New not quite
back when there was just family farms those issues were problems. When I was a youngster drinking raw milk and offered some to an elder neighbor farmer they stated the only milk they would drink was canned condensed because they didnt trust the pasturized to kill everything.

If we torture the data long enough, it will confess. (Ronald Coase, Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences, 1991)
New True, but it's a gray area
Sure, when everyone has their own cow some of them aren't going to keep the barn clean. Just like some people don't keep their kitchen clean. Have you ever watched "Billy the Exterminator"? Some people are fucking slobs. I wouldn't eat anything from their houses.

But modern, non-factory farming is less prone to E. coli and other pathogens. Most of the FDA food handling regulations are designed to protect against the problems of factory farming. If you aren't doing that kind of farming, you're protecting against the wrong thing.

There's plenty of evidence that unpasteurized milk is beneficial. So we're destroying any possibility of that benefit, in order to protect against a problem that doesn't exist on the small farms that keep getting raided.
--

Drew
New Happened to bread, too.
They were putting a preservative in mass-produced bread because it was cheaper and easier than keeping the slicing machines clean. But in AU, there was a backlash a few years ago from consumers. Now most bread doesn't have this unnecessary preservative.

Wade.

Q:Is it proper to eat cheeseburgers with your fingers?
A:No, the fingers should be eaten separately.
New Devil's advocate
(I haven't read the WND linky.)

Pasteurization of milk was proposed by Soxhlet in 1886 - long before modern factory farms. http://en.wikipedia....ki/Pasteurization

Some of the diseases that pasteurization can prevent are diphtheria, salmonellosis, strep throat, scarlet fever, listeriosis, brucellosis and typhoid fever.


Since those diseases are nearly unknown in the west these days, one can infer (but not conclude without more evidence, of course) that it is beneficial.

My recollection is that this "raw milk" argument goes back ~ 30+ years. What seems to be a good history is here - http://docs.google.c...YgoYU39gakbK30dtQ

The regulation of raw milk sales in the first half of the 20th century proved to be a major public health success in this country. In 1938, milkborne outbreaks constituted approximately 25 percent of all disease outbreaks from contaminated food and water. As of 2002, that figure was down to about 1 percent.[5] Outbreaks of illness linked to the consumption of contaminated milk continued, however. The ban on the sale of raw milk was not universal, because at the time no federal law or regulation prohibited the sale of raw milk on a national level. The regulatory scheme controlling the sale of raw milk on the state and local levels was spotty; some states banned the sale of unpasteurized milk, and some did not. In states that did not ban the sale of raw milk, some cities and counties did. The ability to sell and purchase raw milk was thus determined more by the social and political nature of the individual jurisdiction than by scientific knowledge.

Efforts to comprehensively ban the sale of raw milk continued. In 1973, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed and adopted a regulation requiring that all milk moving in interstate commerce be pasteurized, but “certified” raw milk became exempt from the regulation after FDA received an objection from a producer of certified raw milk. Between 1974 and 1982, FDA accumulated evidence of the association of certified raw milk with human disease, and, in 1982, began drafting a proposed regulation to ban all interstate sales of raw milk and raw-milk products. In an attached memorandum supporting the regulation, FDA concluded that consumption of raw milk “presents a significant public health problem” and that pasteurization was the only feasible way to ensure the safety of milk. The proposed regulation, however, was again not adopted.[6]


The problem with 'labeling and letting the buyer decide' is that most people have no way weighing the information even if they have the interest in reading the labels. (Cigarette labels did a lot of good, didn't they?) We know a lot about food-borne illnesses as a result of ~150 years of science. We shouldn't let fads about "natural" foods (you've seen the crap claims about "supplements" that are on TV, I'm sure) and bogus scare stories about the evils of the FDA to cause us to throw away that progress.

You remember the Odwalla juice problems, right? An apparently good company that supposedly tried to be careful, but they still ended up hospitalizing and killing people as a result of not pasteurizing their juices - http://en.wikipedia...._E._coli_outbreak . Subsequent investigation showed a lot of problems with cleanliness and processes at Odwalla factories, but I don't think that catching problems after the fact is the way to go (and there will never be enough good inspectors).

I think you're right that a lot of this comes down to money. But look at the history of food regulations. Which side has a history of screaming bloody murder when rules are strengthened to make food "cleaner" (even if one might be able to argue that it's not as "healthy" as some impossible pristine version). I side with the FDA's scientists on this one.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Back atchya
Eating fat makes you fat, and causes heart attacks and cancer.

Eating cholesterol raises serum cholesterol and causes heart attacks.

Eat less fat and more carbs to lose weight.

Switch from saturated fat butter to margarine.

Switch from tallow to shortening.



Scare stories about the evils of the FDA aren't all bogus.
--

Drew
New You're changing the subject. ;-)
Dietary guidelines are put out by the HHS and Department of Agriculture. Not FDA. I don't think FDA has much, if anything, to do with them.

The latest were published in 2005 (the 2010 version is still in preparation).

http://www.health.go...A_ExecSummary.htm

[...]

The Committee's findings support the development of Dietary Guidelines that convey the following nine major messages:

* Consume a variety of foods within and among the basic food groups while staying within energy needs.
* Control calorie intake to manage body weight.
* Be physically active every day.
* Increase daily intake of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and nonfat or low-fat milk and milk products.
* Choose fats wisely for good health.
* Choose carbohydrates wisely for good health.
* Choose and prepare foods with little salt.
* If you drink alcoholic beverages, do so in moderation.
* Keep food safe to eat.

[ I think most of us would agree with those bullets, at least in moderation. ]

This list makes a major departure from previous editions of Dietary Guidelines for Americans in that it does not include a message specifically directed toward sugars. This does not mean that the current Committee views the topic of sugars to be unimportant. On the contrary, the Committee provides a strong rationale for limiting one's intake of added sugars (that is, sugars and syrups that are added to foods during processing or preparation or at the table). The Committee's intent is to make this point clearly under the new topic "Choose Carbohydrates Wisely for Good Health" and also under the first and second topics, which address energy needs and controlling calorie intake, respectively.


On fats it says ( http://www.health.go...t/PDF/D4_Fats.pdf ):

QUESTION 1: WHAT ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN TOTAL FAT INTAKE AND HEALTH?

Conclusion

At low intakes of fat (< 20 percent of energy) and high intakes of carbohydrates (>65 percent of energy), risk increases for inadequate intakes of vitamin E, α-linolenic acid, and linoleic acid, and for adverse changes in HDL cholesterol and triglycerides. At high intakes of fat (> 35 percent of energy), the risk increases for obesity and CHD. This is because fat intakes that exceed 35 percent of energy are associated with both increased calorie and saturated fat intakes. Total fat intake of 20 to 35 percent of calories is recommended for adults and 25 to 35 percent for children age 4 to 18 years. A fat intake of 30 to 35 percent of calories is recommended for children age 2 to 3 years.

[...]

Published Evidence. The IOM report Dietary Reference Intakes for Energy, Carbohydrate, Fiber, Fat, Fatty Acids, Cholesterol, Protein, and Amino Acids (IOM, 2002) includes a systematic, extensive review of the scientific literature regarding total fat and carbohydrate intake in relation to weight change, blood lipid concentrations, and metabolic parameters for glucose and insulin. Documentation relevant to the conclusions above is found in the following tables:

• 11-1: Decreased Fat Intake and Body Weight Change in Non- or Moderately-Obese Subjects

• 11-2: Fat and Carbohydrate Intake and Blood Lipid Concentrations in Healthy Individuals

• 11-8: Interventional Studies on the Effect of Dietary Fat on the Metabolic Parameters for Glucose and Insulin in Healthy Subjects

Evidence in Table 11-1 (IOM, 2002), which includes nine short-term and nine long-term intervention studies, reports small losses in body weight with substantial reductions (greater than 4 percentage points) in the percentage of energy consumed as fat. The IOM report concludes that evidence suggests that low-fat diets (diets with a low percentage of calories from fat) tend to be slightly hypocaloric compared to higher fat diets in outpatient intervention trials. Data in Table 11-2 (IOM, 2002), which covers 14 intervention studies, demonstrate that decreasing fat and increasing carbohydrate intake is associated with an increase in serum triacylglycerol concentration and a decrease in plasma HDL cholesterol. Moreover, the reduction in HDL cholesterol that is associated with a low fat intake results in a higher total:HDL cholesterol ratio, which may increase the risk of CHD. Table 11-8 (IOM, 2002), which covers 13 intervention studies, reports a lack of definitive evidence that higher fat intakes impair insulin sensitivity in humans. Collectively, the evidence in these tables provides the rationale for the lower and upper range for fat in the diet.

[...]

Positions Taken by Other Expert Groups. Using an evidence-based approach, the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (2002) published the following evidence statement and recommendation related to total fat:

Evidence Statement

The percentage of total fat in the diet, independent of caloric intake, has not been documented to be related to body weight or risk for cancer in the general population. Short-term studies suggest that very high fat intakes (>35 percent calories from fat) modify metabolism in ways that could promote obesity. On the other hand, very high carbohydrate intakes (>60 percent calories) aggravate some of the lipid and non-lipid risk factors common in metabolic syndrome.

Recommendations

Dietary fat recommendations should emphasize a reduction in saturated fatty acids. Furthermore, in individuals with lipid disorders or metabolic syndrome, extremes of total fat intake – either high or low – should be avoided. In such persons, total fat intakes should range from 25-35 percent of calories. For some persons with the metabolic syndrome, a total fat intake of 30-35 percent may reduce lipid and nonlipid risk factors.

(National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel, 2002, p. V-12)

[...]


(Emphasis added.)

My take is: 1) The guidelines are based on observed associations. They don't claim causation. 2) They say that low fat diet, high carb diets can lead to vitamin deficiencies and other problems, so that's not recommended. 3) They say that high fat diets are discouraged because they're associated with excess calories and excess saturated fat. 4) They acknowledge other groups that have slightly different recommendations regarding fats and say that there isn't enough information.

They don't say that if someone has a diet with 35+% fat that they can't be healthy. They don't say that fat causes you to become fat. They apparently don't have enough data to say whether someone weighing 150 pounds can be on a 2000 calorie 40% fat diet and be healthy over the long term by the usual measures.

AFAIK, FDA isn't involved with these dietary guidelines. FDA's mission is:

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, products that emit radiation, and tobacco products.

The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.


FWIW. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Yeah, I know
But all the TLA agencies are pulling from the same set of bad science to come up with their recommendations.

And can I just point out how utterly useless that latest set you quoted is? "Choose fats wisely for good health. Choose carbohydrates wisely for good health." No shit, really? Couldn't they have abbreviated the entire list to "Choose foods wisely" and called it a day? The whole point of these guidelines is to, you know, guide people on what a wise choice would actually be.
--

Drew
New That is what the FDA does
The reason cannot be safety, the report said, since a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation revealed that from 1980 to 2005 there were 10 times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than from raw milk.

And that fact that there where several orders of magnitude more drinkers of pasteurized milk then natural milk doesn't matter? Just checking the Natural News site makes clear it's a health food nut site.

I think the FDA is going to far against raw milk, it isn't that big an issue. The constitutional argument against the FDA is absurd however, this isn't the government forcing you to eat something and there is certainly a valid reason for thinking raw milk can be dangerous. If the argument against the FDA holds up, you might as well give up on all food safety regulation.

Jay
New They should be focusing on transparency
The strictest guidelines should be for disclosure of what's actually in something and how it was processed and handled. Let me decide if that's what I want to eat.

But right now in Ohio there's legislation pending that would make it illegal to say on your packaging that the cows that you got your dairy product from were not given rgBH. Even if they weren't, you're not allowed to say so. Because, so the argument goes, that would imply that there's something wrong with dairy that was treated with rgBH.

But if that argument were true, you can't say anything about anything, because by implication anything else has something wrong with it. "Our breakfast cereal is made from whole wheat." Oh my God, does that mean this other cereal is bad for me? "Our bread is vitamin enriched." Goodness, so this other bread is no good?

Most of the FDA guidelines, once you understand the implications, aren't just designed for factory farming, they all but require factory farming. That's what the raw milk issue is really about. The large producers are trying to drive all the small producers out of business. Their existence provides a vehicle for people to question the quality of the commodity product.
--

Drew
New The FDA often deliberately obscures . . .
. . at the request of the food industry.

For instance, when ingredient lists were first required, an FDA standard formula was made up for ketchup so ingredients didn't have to be listed on the label. The ketchup manufacturers wanted to disguise the fact that their ketchups contained more sugar than ice cream does (which is why kids like ketchup so much).

Of course, sugar is no longer used in ketchup, and I notice that Hunt's (chosen as the best ketchup by Cooks Illustrated) does list ingredients now (in rather small print). Tomatoes are first on the list, High Fructose Corn Syrup is second, then Vinegar, then Corn Syrup. By splitting the sweetness between High Fructose and regular Corn Syrup they can keep Tomatoes as the top ingredient.

New I've noticed that several times lately
I'm seeing HFCS and corn syrup listed separately on labels now. I even saw one -- damn, I was going to take a picture of that one -- that had high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, fructose syrup, and fructose. I was duly impressed.
--

Drew
New hmm - No-HFCS Hunt's lists sugar 2nd, no other sweetener
After reading that Princeton study I'm doing what I can to make sure I don't consume any HFCS. Recently picked up a bottle of HFCS-free Hunt's:

Tomatoes, Sugar, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, less than 2% of: Onion Powder, Garlic Powder, Natural Flavors
New I had the same question
The rest of the report goes on to say that raw milk consumption is something like .5% of total, and raw milk was responsible for .4% of the total reported illnesses. (going from memory, the numbers may be slightly different)
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Problem with the numbers
There are multiple reported instances where CDC was investigating possible food-borne illness, and they stopped asking questions after the respondent said they drank raw milk. So in several of the cases counted as "raw milk contamination" there was never a positive test for pathogens in any milk. And the numbers are so small that even a few instances of this are enough to skew the percentages.
--

Drew
New Re: Problem with the numbers
Even with the numbers reported, however, the incidence of illness is smaller than the use of raw milk.
Regards,
-scott
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Thanks! IGM.. for an intelligent er, colloquy on an
admittedly complex topic..

There IS intelligence amidst the affluenza suffering narcissists of my environs! (lately)
Really, Thanks for yan counter-example -just now- to brute homo-sap ignorance and cruelty
-- which lately I am seeing much-too much of.

See ... was just in a lengthy phone confab with 'John' in San Diego area.
He rescues cats abandoned amidst the now epidemic of foreclosed houses and McMansions.
Yes, some.. just leave the animals behind; some, even: locked inside. Sans food/sans Anything.
Alzheimers? utter Me-Me-Me indifference to former-PETS?? And in the case at hand: a 2-strikes ex-con ...
who actively put motor oil in food left by others for the now 'strays'.
[Small Cosmic Humour comeuppance: that churl was subsequently ousted from his nearby digs, too.]

He, I (and hopefully other callers on the network, next) are trying to find a 'forever home' for the topic-cat, Mr. No Name -- with pellet gun wounds from aforementioned beast-man.
He has spent $$ and many weeks nursing back to almost-health this affectionate/grateful animal -- but he + wife have several others vying for his limited space, etc.

Yeah.. it may seem like shoveling shit against-the-tide, as I too imagined these matters. Once.
But I also have a yellow cat inhabiting garage indefinitely. Her fear is palpable, even towards me, though she momentarily relents to be briefly touched -- at food time.
This is her normal/quite-sane response to a bi-ped after All That Experience of certain ones. In time.. she will be able to trust again.
(In opinion/experience of person who trapped her, way-out in barren territory -- as she seeks regularly to find her own yellow tabby:
actually cat-napped by a disturbed nearby tenant! For pure spite. [Too long a digression, that.])

She 'places' the ones found, but not Hers -- surprisingly often, 7/10: with the people who answered her posted flyers re her own missing tabby.
Once they have seen what the animal went through and how it has responded to kindness
-- they make room; most end up as indoor or in/outdoor cats, but part of their family.

I'm hooked in this counter-game, I see by now. There are NO Red- Blue-state cats; they are guileless while being also independent creatures.
I deem each small victory -- a particular One: over the Murican tribes We Have Created of feral teens, so disconnected from Life that various of them have:

put a cat in an oven,
put a cat in a washing machine,
poured/lit some solvent over a kitten in a transporter (left briefly outside by a door.)
[That one thrives today, sans tail, multiple skin grafts -- done gratis by a local surgeon. I've seen the before/after pics on her wall.]

..Beats cursing the ugly darkness which has descended over the Affluenza-victims,
rotting their any-sense of connection to a creature other than Me-Me-Me.
Aside: as others report, it seems that the common-denominator of those most involved in these 'projects' is:
Most are 'poor-in-$$', yet they willingly spend, one rescue at a time.

Hmmm, all of us refugees from that Group -W Bench, after all?


Carrion





I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers!
-- via RC
     we is the gummint and we are here to help - (boxley) - (17)
         Almost right - (drook) - (7)
             not quite - (boxley) - (1)
                 True, but it's a gray area - (drook)
             Happened to bread, too. - (static)
             Devil's advocate - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 Back atchya - (drook) - (2)
                     You're changing the subject. ;-) - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         Yeah, I know - (drook)
         That is what the FDA does - (jay) - (7)
             They should be focusing on transparency - (drook) - (3)
                 The FDA often deliberately obscures . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                     I've noticed that several times lately - (drook)
                     hmm - No-HFCS Hunt's lists sugar 2nd, no other sweetener - (SpiceWare)
             I had the same question - (malraux) - (2)
                 Problem with the numbers - (drook) - (1)
                     Re: Problem with the numbers - (malraux)
         Thanks! IGM.. for an intelligent er, colloquy on an - (Ashton)

Rutabaga.
72 ms