CDC admits not a single person has died from consuming raw milk products in 11 years Learn more: ht

reply to post by BearTruth

Where do I start?

First 1837 illnesses purportedly from raw milk in the US. No deaths. Sounds scary doesn't it. Put that into perspective. Out of 300,000,000+ people in the US, 1,837 were sickened by one of three strains of bacteria attributed to raw milk. That is 1 person out of 163,310.

www.cdc.gov...

That link made no mention of raw milk, so i have no idea where you get "1837 illnesses purportedly from raw milk in the US. No deaths". But that is okay the natural news article (like most natural news articles) did not link to any CDC page where they admit to anything like they claim either

But once again you have to look at some of these raw milk supporters and what they really want. Many of the supporters are under the idea that raw milk is illegal in places that it is not. Many of the smaller farmers are pushing to go unregulated. Meaning that they don't want to bother to test their milk before they sell it.

Originally posted by PrimalRed
But once again you have to look at some of these raw milk supporters and what they really want. Many of the supporters are under the idea that raw milk is illegal in places that it is not. Many of the smaller farmers are pushing to go unregulated. Meaning that they don't want to bother to test their milk before they sell it.

Can you provide documentation for your arguments? What makes you think the dairy farmers do not want to be bothered with testing their milk? Again I ask what do you know about the industry?

Half of our states in the USA have laws the prohibit the sale of raw milk. The other half have guidelines as to how the raw milk is handled. Farmers are not looking for the standards to be lifted so their milk is not tested. They merely want to be able to sell their milk to customers who come directly to their farms. Each state has their own rules and they vary.

It is people like you who muddy the water. You want to argue passionately, but you should consider doing it with documentation and a base of knowledge.

reply to post by TechUnique


i grew up on a farm in the 1950s where everybody drank raw milk.
so did all our neighbors and i never heard of anyone getting sick.

also in school no one was allergic to peanuts.

has the imune system of the population crashed?

reply to post by hardamber


Here is one.
www.forbes.com...
They were raided for not getting the permit and meeting the requirements to sell, that is to say they wish to go unregulated. But on the supporters side they try to make it look like some war is being carried out on raw milk.
www.naturalnews.com...
Notice nowhere did natural news say that raw milk is in fact legal in California.

Can you provide documentation for your arguments? What makes you think the dairy farmers do not want to be bothered with testing their milk? Again I ask what do you know about the industry?
It is people like you who muddy the water. You want to argue passionately, but you should consider doing it with documentation and a base of knowledge.

Again, saying nothing and questioning my knowledge. Should i do as you do and just start questioning your knowledge and demanding documentation?

reply to post by PrimalRed


Thank you for pointing out my omission. I have corrected it in the original post.

www.cdc.gov...

And here it is for anyone who doesn't want to back track. Although the OP may not be a source considered legitimate by some, I think all will agree that using the CDC's own publications to back up my points, is legitimate for the subject. BT

Originally posted by PrimalRed
reply to post by hardamber

 

Here is one.
www.forbes.com...
They were raided for not getting the permit and meeting the requirements to sell, that is to say they wish to go unregulated. But on the supporters side they try to make it look like some war is being carried out on raw milk.
www.naturalnews.com...
Notice nowhere did natural news say that raw milk is in fact legal in California.

Can you provide documentation for your arguments? What makes you think the dairy farmers do not want to be bothered with testing their milk? Again I ask what do you know about the industry?
It is people like you who muddy the water. You want to argue passionately, but you should consider doing it with documentation and a base of knowledge.

Again, saying nothing and questioning my knowledge. Should i do as you do and just start questioning your knowledge and demanding documentation?

Getting a permit to sell raw milk is not the same thing as having it tested. Cow owners do have their milk tested. We don't want our cows to be unhealthy and when we suspect a problem will nip it in the bud. We have to be extra careful with our milk because we don't cook it to kill off the harmful bacteria.

A permit is not needed to consume the milk that comes from a cow you own or are leasing. People buy cow and goat shares in states that do not allow the outright purchase of raw milk. That means they are leasing the cow for that lactation and the farmer milks the cow for them and houses it.

reply to post by hardamber


You can go off on your pedantic tangents about a dairy farm but facts are facts. Raw milk is legal in california rawsome did not want to do the necessary testing and get the permits to produce it, then Natural News spins it to make it sound like it is about the state being against raw milk. You don't need to graduate from bovine university to see that.

Originally posted by BearTruth
reply to post by PrimalRed

 

Thank you for pointing out my omission. I have corrected it in the original post.

www.cdc.gov...

And here it is for anyone who doesn't want to back track. Although the OP may not be a source considered legitimate by some, I think all will agree that using the CDC's own publications to back up my points, is legitimate for the subject. BT

well

Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1973 and 2009 in which the investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 82% were due to raw milk or cheese. From 1998 through 2009, 93 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC. These resulted in 1,837 illnesses, 195 hospitalizations, and 2 deaths.

is a lot different than.

First 1837 illnesses purportedly from raw milk in the US. No deaths. Sounds scary doesn't it. Put that into perspective. Out of 300,000,000+ people in the US, 1,837 were sickened by one of three strains of bacteria attributed to raw milk. That is 1 person out of 163,310.

But you have to remember that raw milk is only available in so many states and there is a huge difference in having a cow to milk and running a farm to sell milk. Just like it is easy to keep one gallon of water clean but not as easy to do with 10,000 gallons of water.

I work at a health food store in San Diego and the California Department of Public Health (CDFA) had us remove all the Raw Milk off the shelf yesterday.. They said that in the last 8 weeks people were testing positive for E. Coli O157 and supposively all 5 people were drinking raw milk. All 5 people live in different parts of California. The company we get our milk from (Organic Pastures) has there milk tested multiple times per week from 3rd party inspectors and by the CDFA for infections and have never had any positive testings. Right now all Raw milk in Califonia had been pulled off the shelf untill the source of ths E. Coli has been identified.

It was also stated in a letter sent to us that all products from the ill patients were tested for E. Coli and they came up as negative.

It is a coincidence that these people that got E. Coli all drink raw milk, but none of the milk tested positive. Most people who drink raw milk also eat alot of Vegetables. I know Vegetables (Spinach) and such have been known for having E. Coli.. I

I find this kind of odd of how the CDFA chose to go after the raw milk industry and feel there is another motive with this..

reply to post by PrimalRed


I have no contention with the fact that a family farm with a milk cow, is less complicated that a dairy farm.

Also, I tried to correct the error of 2 deaths in my post, but had exceeded the 4 hours. My point in the figures was that 1,837 documenedt illnesses in over 10 years, with 2 deaths, does not indicate a rampant out of control health issue. It does indicate that care must be taken. It does indicate that there was a lapse in the process.

I don't believe that raw milk should be excluded from basic hygenic guidelines. What I am against, is pushing the envelope to the point where the raw milk is not available for sale to people who can't own a cow. That is what I fear is coming.

Also, I wanted to state the point, that people must be responsible for their own health, and safety. They must make personal choices for themselves and their children which are in their best interest. They need to learn the proper way to choose, purchase and prepare the foods they consume.

Originally posted by PrimalRed

Originally posted by HandyDandy
reply to post by PrimalRed

 

OK. Chicken not cooked properly can give you the same illnesses. Where do we draw the line?

Not to mention sushi.

edit on 17-11-2011 by HandyDandy because: (no reason given)

The point is for the most part you have to do something stupid to die from alcohol, where as food borne illnesses just require you to eat to be effected. Basically you have a choice to die or kill someone from alcohol and you do not have a choice to die from food.
And chicken that is not COOKED can give you problems, restaurants are not serving raw chicken.

edit on 17-11-2011 by PrimalRed because: (no reason given)

The point is if someone wants to take a supposed risk and drink raw milk, they should be allowed to. It's just milk, for crying out loud. Albeit, milk that hasn't had the nutrients removed by boiling them away.

/TOA

if the powers that be are against raw milk, there must be something to it.

reply to post by PrimalRed



Actually I wasn't talking about OTC but drugs that are prescribed by doctors the death by prescribe drugs due to side effects has been growing in this nation.

I would put some statistic but we have done plenty of threads on this subject and this thread is not about prescribe drugs so I don't want to derail the topic if you don't mind.

reply to post by citizen6511


Now that you bring that subject I have to add, that during the 60s back home because the benefits of protein in peanut, we were given in school warm milk with peanut butter everyday with our fresh cooked lunches, I don't remember children or adults complaining about allergies back then, but then again, the mass vaccination didn't started in our island until the late 60s and early 70s, I got my first polio vaccine when I was 9 years old, then I remember been vaccinated for one reason or the other after that.

I started to have allergies during my teen years, until now, but I am missing a whole panel of childhood vaccinations and was told of the missing antibodies after been tested while working as a volunteer for the local hospital.

When I was told at 48 that I needed the missing vaccines I laughed at their faces and told them that If at my age I don't have them it means I don't need.

Originally posted by PrimalRed
For the most part try to stay away from natural news, they have a history of publishing false information then not correcting it. I think it was last year they ran some story about the FDA banning injectable vitamin C which turned out to be just a made up story.

EXACTLY. Any logical-thinking person who spends more than 5 minutes on the NN site will see that it is overblown propaganda, half-facts, and outright lies. Finding truth there is like finding the proverbial needle in the haystack.

People are just not getting it, i do not think raw milk should be banned or illegal anywhere. It should be heavily regulated and it is and there are few deaths. The production of raw milk for sale is illegal in MANY places, there are only a few states where it is done, so therefore it is logical that there are so few deaths connected with raw milk. To say that it is 100% safe is just stupid, you really can't say that it is totally safe and then in the same breath say it is a risk people should have the right to take, that is having it both ways.
The whole subject of this thread is just ANOTHER wild claim made by natural news that is not based on any reality besides the one that exists in the owners head.

reply to post by TechUnique


"Raw" milk, what the hell is that?

I was always given fresh milk, fresh from the cow, chilled in the wellhouse, then stirred to mix in the cream.

Nothing better on my rolled oats. Fresh skimmed cream on peaches, greatest dessert in the world.

reply to post by marg6043


The whole "Vitamin D enriched" selling point is bullcrap anyway, fresh milk has more Vitamin D than overcooked milk with it added. The pastuerizing process strips the vitamins out of milk so they have to be added back in.

The white milklike drink they sell in stores tastes like water to me anyway. Can't drink it.

reply to post by PrimalRed


I'll definitely give you that point about statistics, you are correct in the fact that raw milk can make you sick, so can steak tartare, over-easy eggs, shellfish, and any number of other consumables.

I know the farmer that I get my milk from, I know how his cattle are raised and treated, and I trust him.

My issue is with them trying to make my decisions for me. If I choose to drink raw milk, that is my right.

Stay the hell out of my kitchen until you can prove that I am maliciously harming others.