3 ms·

> it has also become a call for "FREEEEEeeeeeddoooomm" it's also become a call for "us smart people must outlaw the stupid people" > Now, laws are viewed as b

> it has also become a call for "FREEEEEeeeeeddoooomm" it's also become a call for "us smart people must outlaw the stupid people" > Now, laws are viewed as bad, just let me kill myself if I want to on the other hand, isn't europe sophisticated and progressive for legalizing suicide?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Guess it's intention. If you 'choose' to die. Fine. Drinking raw milk is more like walking into traffic without looking, maybe you get hit, maybe not, maybe you are injured, maybe dead, maybe your ok. Yes, a lot of regulations are about protecting stupid people. But also to save some time, not everyone is going to have testing kits laying around and analyzing everything they eat. That would be horribly inefficient to make everyone do their own food testing before they can eat. Sure, smart people can be extra careful, but do you want to have to be extra careful with everything, just in case you are grabbing a grenade every time you open the fridge.
- lurking15 2y ago
  > Drinking raw milk is more like walking into traffic without looking, maybe you get hit, maybe not, maybe you are injured, maybe dead, maybe your ok. The risk is so vanishingly small compared to traffic deaths that what you’re saying is nothing more than anti-science misinformation. What’s the rate of deaths or injury?
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    I'm sure you can find 'pro' studies, there are benefits, and of course there are 'con's, like heaving your guts out. But to say the risk is 'vanishingly' small is the true 'anti-science' here. Are you anti-vax also? Measles is just a natural process? ""This review describes why pasteurization of milk was introduced more than 100 years ago, how pasteurization helped to reduce the incidence of illnesses associated with raw milk consumption, and the prevalence of pathogens in raw milk. In some studies, up to a third of all raw milk samples contained pathogens, even when sourced from clinically healthy animals or from milk that appeared to be of good quality."" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/
    - lurking15 2y ago
      You've cited whether there's pathogens detected, you could do that with many things and it matters less whether there's pathogens and more whether the food itself is dangerous to eat in practice. It seems to me that you're trying to propagandize and stigmatize rather than seek out relevant numbers: how many deaths have we observed? Illnesses? Severity? It turns out over 30 years of surveillance, there's been 3 deaths attributed to raw milk and 33 hospitalizations. Compared to any other danger that risk seems minuscule, for proportion, usage is estimated to be 1-2% of the adult population weekly. Has sushi killed more? > During 1998–2018, health departments reported 21919 foodborne outbreaks and 423 595 outbreak-associated illnesses to FDOSS. Of these, 202 outbreaks (0.9%) and 2645 illnesses (0.6%) were linked to unpasteurised milk (Table 1), including 228 hospitalisations and three deaths. During the same time period, 9 outbreaks (0.04%) and 2133 illnesses (0.5%) linked to pasteurised milk were reported, including 33 hospitalisations and three deaths. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/foodborne-illness-outbreaks-linked-to-unpasteurised-milk-and-relationship-to-changes-in-state-laws-united-states-19982018/4822109E69DDAB37E92CAAB41AB1CC0F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf...
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Scale? Those using raw milk are a very small percentage of total milk drinkers, and already there are deaths at all? I'll have to go look for total numbers, I do not believe at all that 1-2% of adult population is drinking raw milk. Perhaps I'm biased. I work in the food industry, and know that corporations want to cut costs, increase profits by any means necessary, including risky practices. And any reduction in regulations is just another step in moving the line in the wrong direction. Try eating some raw chicken, which sounds crazy, but that is the same group arguing for raw milk. So today, maybe the raw milk movement is being extra careful, give it a few year s and people 'relaxing' their vigilance. Food regulations are there for a reason, because at some point in the past, people were dying. And they will die again if given a chance. So. Guess, I'm all for options. But there better be some pretty strict 'new' regulations to protect 'raw' milk, to replace the current old 'pasteurized' milk regulations.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Guess it's intention. If you 'choose' to die. Fine. Drinking raw milk is more like walking into traffic without looking, maybe you get hit, maybe not, maybe you are injured, maybe dead, maybe your ok. Yes, a lot of regulations are about protecting stupid people. But also to save some time, not everyone is going to have testing kits laying around and analyzing everything they eat. That would be horribly inefficient to make everyone do their own food testing before they can eat. Sure, smart people can be extra careful, but do you want to have to be extra careful with everything, just in case you are grabbing a grenade every time you open the fridge.

lurking15 2y ago
> Drinking raw milk is more like walking into traffic without looking, maybe you get hit, maybe not, maybe you are injured, maybe dead, maybe your ok. The risk is so vanishingly small compared to traffic deaths that what you’re saying is nothing more than anti-science misinformation. What’s the rate of deaths or injury?
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  I'm sure you can find 'pro' studies, there are benefits, and of course there are 'con's, like heaving your guts out. But to say the risk is 'vanishingly' small is the true 'anti-science' here. Are you anti-vax also? Measles is just a natural process? ""This review describes why pasteurization of milk was introduced more than 100 years ago, how pasteurization helped to reduce the incidence of illnesses associated with raw milk consumption, and the prevalence of pathogens in raw milk. In some studies, up to a third of all raw milk samples contained pathogens, even when sourced from clinically healthy animals or from milk that appeared to be of good quality."" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4890836/
  - lurking15 2y ago
    You've cited whether there's pathogens detected, you could do that with many things and it matters less whether there's pathogens and more whether the food itself is dangerous to eat in practice. It seems to me that you're trying to propagandize and stigmatize rather than seek out relevant numbers: how many deaths have we observed? Illnesses? Severity? It turns out over 30 years of surveillance, there's been 3 deaths attributed to raw milk and 33 hospitalizations. Compared to any other danger that risk seems minuscule, for proportion, usage is estimated to be 1-2% of the adult population weekly. Has sushi killed more? > During 1998–2018, health departments reported 21919 foodborne outbreaks and 423 595 outbreak-associated illnesses to FDOSS. Of these, 202 outbreaks (0.9%) and 2645 illnesses (0.6%) were linked to unpasteurised milk (Table 1), including 228 hospitalisations and three deaths. During the same time period, 9 outbreaks (0.04%) and 2133 illnesses (0.5%) linked to pasteurised milk were reported, including 33 hospitalisations and three deaths. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-infection/article/foodborne-illness-outbreaks-linked-to-unpasteurised-milk-and-relationship-to-changes-in-state-laws-united-states-19982018/4822109E69DDAB37E92CAAB41AB1CC0F https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/epidemiology-and-inf...
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      Scale? Those using raw milk are a very small percentage of total milk drinkers, and already there are deaths at all? I'll have to go look for total numbers, I do not believe at all that 1-2% of adult population is drinking raw milk. Perhaps I'm biased. I work in the food industry, and know that corporations want to cut costs, increase profits by any means necessary, including risky practices. And any reduction in regulations is just another step in moving the line in the wrong direction. Try eating some raw chicken, which sounds crazy, but that is the same group arguing for raw milk. So today, maybe the raw milk movement is being extra careful, give it a few year s and people 'relaxing' their vigilance. Food regulations are there for a reason, because at some point in the past, people were dying. And they will die again if given a chance. So. Guess, I'm all for options. But there better be some pretty strict 'new' regulations to protect 'raw' milk, to replace the current old 'pasteurized' milk regulations.