3 ms·
We apparently aren’t. “Although only about 1 percent of Americans drink it, raw milk accounted for 70 percent of milk-related food poisoning outbreaks between 2
by isleyaardvark 4y ago
We apparently aren’t. “Although only about 1 percent of Americans drink it, raw milk accounted for 70 percent of milk-related food poisoning outbreaks between 2002 and 2011”. (https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/raw-milk-1-percent-of-consumers-70-percent-of-milk-outbreaks/ https://foodpoisoningbulletin.com/2014/raw-milk-1-percent-of...)
- jessaustin 4y agoThat link would be more convincing if it dealt in quantities rather than percentages. Does 70% mean 7 out of 10 or 700,000 out of 1,000,000? And anyway, why wasn't it 100%? People who intentionally consume raw milk know that it's raw. Why shouldn't we be more concerned about the 30% who drank pasteurized and still got poisoned?
- goatcode 4y ago>sparing countless people from infections and deaths Lumping those two categories together is a disservice to truth, and possibly health. If everyone died to whom you're referring when you talk about how "apparently we're not," then perhaps we're not good at dealing with the consequences. However, if most recovered, I'd say we are. Furthermore, the consequences of what? I'd say factory farming as opposed to drinking milk in the way it was drunk for thousands of years prior. If you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it's best to make sure you know that the baby is indeed the problem.