5 ms·

Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? Some of

by folli 5y ago

Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor stomache ache.

skummetmaelk 5y ago
It must be some weird blindness to the privilege of living in a mostly well organized and safe society. The rules were established a long time ago and do their job like a well oiled IT support department. Invisible to the common person when it works well. Unfortunately they then start questioning why it is necessary.
- elhudy 5y ago
  This is such an odd conclusion I’m struggling to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to make it there. Please see my other response addressing the false equivalencies presented in the previous post. Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.
  - skummetmaelk 5y ago
    That's the federal ban. Individual states restricted sales of raw milk prior to that. I just find it weird that we start applying germ theory to combating tubercolosis outbreaks, find out raw milk is a problem, FDA makes recommendations to limit the sale of raw milk and sell only pasteurized milk back in the 1920's. Now there's this whole rejection of past experience and known dangers because of a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything "natural" is good for you. Drinking milk as an adult isn't even natural. It's nice sure, but it's not natural.
    - elhudy 5y ago
      The discussion isn’t about what’s good for you or what’s natural, it’s about whether the government should be able to impose extreme restrictions on what we consume and how those restrictions are implemented. 43 states allow the sale of raw milk in some form or another, but this sale is largely restricted from grocery stores. Of course the FDA recommends limiting the sale of raw milk, why wouldnt they? On a commercial scale allowing the sale of raw milk in grocery stores could be disastrous. But it’s not consumed on that scale and that’s outside of the context of this discussion - which is about it being legal to drink (not sell) raw milk.
elhudy 5y ago
>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!
- skummetmaelk 5y ago
  > These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk. > Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning! The gigantic difference there is that it only takes one bad bottle of milk to kill you or make you seriously ill whereas eating something with slightly elevated lead content won't do much and only becomes a problem with long term exposure. I'm also pretty sure you don't check the lead content of every batch, but instead do sampling. You can't do that with milk because as noted it only takes one.
  - elhudy 5y ago
    Embarrassingly, I was not aware that raw milk could carry pathogens such as TB which are spread beyond consumption - I assumed it carried all the localized pathogens as other foods (salmonella, listeria, etc.). I certainly understand your point now and retract that it is a false equivalency. I’m still not convinced that the answer to local farmers selling raw milk to their friends should be outright jail time - rather than enforcement of testing standards. I’m not familiar enough with the upfront costs of that to know whether it’s economical. You mention it “only takes one” but the reality is contamination in raw milk is rare enough that it is also essentially a long-term risk as well, particularly when consuming from 2-3 cattle. Again, I dont drink the stuff but i certainly sympathize with rural communities that believe it’s in their rights to do so.
PolygonSheep 5y ago
I think it's the inconsistency that gets me. I can quite legally order at local restaurants: eggs sunny side up, a rare hamburger, raw hamburger with a raw egg on top (steak tartare), a rare steak, raw steak (carpaccio) raw fish (sushi, ceviche), and raw oysters. This is all very legal. Put up next to those, a ban on buying raw milk seems kinda odd. If we're gonna ban selling raw milk why not ban serving raw fish too? "But it's safe if it's fresh and prepared properly". So is raw milk. I'm not saying this is good. I won't personally eat raw hamburger or raw seafood. I have no urge to drink raw milk. I think you're playing Russian Roulette with your intestines if you do. It just reminds me of weed being illegal (still is in a lot of the US) but tobacco and alcohol being legal despite the massive amount of lungs and livers they have ruined (not to mention stuff like drunk driving). Winners don't do drugs of course but it just doesn't make sense to ban this drug but allow that one which is arguably worse in every way.

by folli 5y ago

skummetmaelk 5y ago

It must be some weird blindness to the privilege of living in a mostly well organized and safe society. The rules were established a long time ago and do their job like a well oiled IT support department. Invisible to the common person when it works well. Unfortunately they then start questioning why it is necessary.

elhudy 5y ago
This is such an odd conclusion I’m struggling to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to make it there. Please see my other response addressing the false equivalencies presented in the previous post. Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.
- skummetmaelk 5y ago
  That's the federal ban. Individual states restricted sales of raw milk prior to that. I just find it weird that we start applying germ theory to combating tubercolosis outbreaks, find out raw milk is a problem, FDA makes recommendations to limit the sale of raw milk and sell only pasteurized milk back in the 1920's. Now there's this whole rejection of past experience and known dangers because of a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything "natural" is good for you. Drinking milk as an adult isn't even natural. It's nice sure, but it's not natural.
  - elhudy 5y ago
    The discussion isn’t about what’s good for you or what’s natural, it’s about whether the government should be able to impose extreme restrictions on what we consume and how those restrictions are implemented. 43 states allow the sale of raw milk in some form or another, but this sale is largely restricted from grocery stores. Of course the FDA recommends limiting the sale of raw milk, why wouldnt they? On a commercial scale allowing the sale of raw milk in grocery stores could be disastrous. But it’s not consumed on that scale and that’s outside of the context of this discussion - which is about it being legal to drink (not sell) raw milk.

elhudy 5y ago

>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!

skummetmaelk 5y ago
> These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk. > Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning! The gigantic difference there is that it only takes one bad bottle of milk to kill you or make you seriously ill whereas eating something with slightly elevated lead content won't do much and only becomes a problem with long term exposure. I'm also pretty sure you don't check the lead content of every batch, but instead do sampling. You can't do that with milk because as noted it only takes one.
- elhudy 5y ago
  Embarrassingly, I was not aware that raw milk could carry pathogens such as TB which are spread beyond consumption - I assumed it carried all the localized pathogens as other foods (salmonella, listeria, etc.). I certainly understand your point now and retract that it is a false equivalency. I’m still not convinced that the answer to local farmers selling raw milk to their friends should be outright jail time - rather than enforcement of testing standards. I’m not familiar enough with the upfront costs of that to know whether it’s economical. You mention it “only takes one” but the reality is contamination in raw milk is rare enough that it is also essentially a long-term risk as well, particularly when consuming from 2-3 cattle. Again, I dont drink the stuff but i certainly sympathize with rural communities that believe it’s in their rights to do so.

PolygonSheep 5y ago

I think it's the inconsistency that gets me. I can quite legally order at local restaurants: eggs sunny side up, a rare hamburger, raw hamburger with a raw egg on top (steak tartare), a rare steak, raw steak (carpaccio) raw fish (sushi, ceviche), and raw oysters. This is all very legal. Put up next to those, a ban on buying raw milk seems kinda odd. If we're gonna ban selling raw milk why not ban serving raw fish too? "But it's safe if it's fresh and prepared properly". So is raw milk. I'm not saying this is good. I won't personally eat raw hamburger or raw seafood. I have no urge to drink raw milk. I think you're playing Russian Roulette with your intestines if you do. It just reminds me of weed being illegal (still is in a lot of the US) but tobacco and alcohol being legal despite the massive amount of lungs and livers they have ruined (not to mention stuff like drunk driving). Winners don't do drugs of course but it just doesn't make sense to ban this drug but allow that one which is arguably worse in every way.