Post #326,213
5/14/10 11:47:08 AM
|
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
|
Post #326,219
5/14/10 12:13:04 PM
|
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
|
Post #326,230
5/14/10 2:03:53 PM
|
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.
|
Post #326,231
5/14/10 2:17:50 PM
|
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
|
Post #326,236
5/14/10 3:04:51 PM
|
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
|
Post #326,235
5/14/10 2:59:08 PM
|
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.
|
Post #326,238
5/14/10 3:20:20 PM
|
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
|
Post #326,240
5/14/10 3:25:05 PM
|
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.
|
