3 ms·

Do you want shorter average lifespans? This is how you get them. By ignoring advances in things like food safety. > I used to get not full on sick, but pretty

Do you want shorter average lifespans? This is how you get them. By ignoring advances in things like food safety. > I used to get not full on sick, but pretty sick after eating raw or partially raw meat. You may think it's crazy, but I just continued doing it and eventually stopped getting diarrhea and cramps. This kills some people. Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic.

markdown 5y ago
What a first-world take. And not just a first-world take, but a city-slicker first-world take. Auto-immune diseases and allergies are killing people and ruining lives. A little bit of bacteria doesn't hurt.
- bremac 5y ago
  As someone who grew up on a dairy farm, who worked on a farm, and who has friends and family operating their own farms, I'd like to point out that this is backwards. Farmers know that bacteria can make them sick or even kill them. It's the city-slickers who have never been truly ill who think that they're harmless.
- jrmg 5y ago
  Current, modern day humans live longer, healthier lives than any who have ever lived before.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Auto-immune diseases and allergies are nowhere even slightly near as big a problem as dysentery and other food borne illnesses used to be. There are far more people who died of TB from contaminated milk alone than people dieing of allergies. It's true that other aspects of improved care have also reduced the risk from food borne illnesses - antibiotics, clean water, IV rehydration and others.
ravenstine 5y ago
> Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic. That's not even remotely comparable. If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale? The whole point of the legalization is to legalize the consumption. Did you read the article?
- notsureaboutpg 5y ago
- foogazi 5y ago
  > If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale? It’s because we don’t know who will die from it It’s like seat belts or motorcycle helmets - millions of people will never have a need for them, but they save lives
- inopinatus 5y ago
  On the contrary; it's comparable, it's just not identical. The point is that public health recommendations are made to serve the greater good, not serve the preferences of an individual. Please wash your hands. Regarding the policy aspects: when a substance is potentially harmful then we already have frameworks to regulate sale and possession, as used for things like radioactives and poisons. If an activity is harmful but only to the individual, then education and normalization of behaviour offers the best possible public health outcome, such as the wearing of bicycle helmets (everyone should wear a helmet, but criminalising noncompliance is the worst possible means to achieve it). Only when an activity is harmful to others (such as smoking, or not wearing a facemask during a pandemic) should criminalisation be considered, in my view. In general, exposing younger citizens to hazardous substances (like people feeding their kids raw milk) shouldn't need specific treatment since it's already covered by child endangerment laws and duty of care towards minors, although I suppose carve-outs can be considered when some echobubble loses their collective minds. By such a policy position, the legislature in the original story did half the job, in my opinion; the sale and possession of raw milk should be regulated like a poison, and the consumption of it strongly deterred through education of the risks. The stunt of drinking it was the height of idiocy, but stupidity is hardly in short supply amongst legislators.

markdown 5y ago

What a first-world take. And not just a first-world take, but a city-slicker first-world take. Auto-immune diseases and allergies are killing people and ruining lives. A little bit of bacteria doesn't hurt.

bremac 5y ago
As someone who grew up on a dairy farm, who worked on a farm, and who has friends and family operating their own farms, I'd like to point out that this is backwards. Farmers know that bacteria can make them sick or even kill them. It's the city-slickers who have never been truly ill who think that they're harmless.
jrmg 5y ago
Current, modern day humans live longer, healthier lives than any who have ever lived before.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Auto-immune diseases and allergies are nowhere even slightly near as big a problem as dysentery and other food borne illnesses used to be. There are far more people who died of TB from contaminated milk alone than people dieing of allergies. It's true that other aspects of improved care have also reduced the risk from food borne illnesses - antibiotics, clean water, IV rehydration and others.

ravenstine 5y ago

> Health advice isn't about you, it's about everyone. See also: wearing a mask during a pandemic. That's not even remotely comparable. If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale? The whole point of the legalization is to legalize the consumption. Did you read the article?

notsureaboutpg 5y ago
foogazi 5y ago
> If someone else could die from drinking raw milk, what business is it of theirs that I choose to drink gallons of it and live to tell the tale? It’s because we don’t know who will die from it It’s like seat belts or motorcycle helmets - millions of people will never have a need for them, but they save lives
inopinatus 5y ago
On the contrary; it's comparable, it's just not identical. The point is that public health recommendations are made to serve the greater good, not serve the preferences of an individual. Please wash your hands. Regarding the policy aspects: when a substance is potentially harmful then we already have frameworks to regulate sale and possession, as used for things like radioactives and poisons. If an activity is harmful but only to the individual, then education and normalization of behaviour offers the best possible public health outcome, such as the wearing of bicycle helmets (everyone should wear a helmet, but criminalising noncompliance is the worst possible means to achieve it). Only when an activity is harmful to others (such as smoking, or not wearing a facemask during a pandemic) should criminalisation be considered, in my view. In general, exposing younger citizens to hazardous substances (like people feeding their kids raw milk) shouldn't need specific treatment since it's already covered by child endangerment laws and duty of care towards minors, although I suppose carve-outs can be considered when some echobubble loses their collective minds. By such a policy position, the legislature in the original story did half the job, in my opinion; the sale and possession of raw milk should be regulated like a poison, and the consumption of it strongly deterred through education of the risks. The stunt of drinking it was the height of idiocy, but stupidity is hardly in short supply amongst legislators.