5 ms·
Because it kills people. “ According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, there were 20
by TylerE 2y ago
Because it kills people.
“ According to a study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration, there were 202 disease outbreaks in the US due to drinking raw milk between 1998 and 2018, leading to 2,645 illnesses, 228 hospitalizations, and three deaths. In 2017, nearly 5 percent of Americans were thought to consume unpasteurized milk products, including raw cheese, and raw dairy products led to 840 times more illnesses than pasteurized products.”
840x higher risk of food borne illness is significant.
- kerkeslager 2y agoI mean, saying 840x more makes it sound significant, but... US population in 2017 was 324 million. 5% of that is 16 million people. 2645 out of 16 million is 0.017%. Does that make it sound significant? Is that even as dangerous as refined sugar? In my mind that's well within the risk range of "slap a warning label on it and let people make their own decisions".
- TylerE 2y agoWhat's the benefit? It doesn't taste different. It's just a thing that appeals to luddites and granola moms.
- willcipriano 2y agoNot everything that happens needs to benefit you.
- eikenberry 2y agoThe benefit already laid out by the grand-parent post... to grant easy access for people to use it to make their own cheese.
- dukeyukey 2y agoWe shouldn't just ban everything that has no benefit. People are allowed to make decisions about stuff. If someone wants to drink raw milk, let them.
- kerkeslager 2y agoI don't know of any benefits to raw milk, why don't you ask a luddite or a granola mom? I don't consume raw milk products and I'm not trying to sell you on them. The benefit to not regulating irrelevant things like raw milk, is that we can put regulatory funds toward things that kill more then 3 people in 20 years--that's your statistic, I pulled it from your post. How many people die of diabetes caused by added sugars each year, I wonder? To be honest, I don't really care if raw milk remains illegal. My main objection to your post was the manipulation of statistics to make an insignificant issue seem significant.
- eikenberry 2y agoLabeling should be enough regulation for products like this. Just make sure people can know the difference. This places the onus where it belongs, on the individual.
- mook 2y agoThat's only true if people getting sick isn't using any resources to get un-sick (they probably will be).
- scrollaway 2y agoThree deaths in 20 years isn’t exactly “using resources”. It doesn’t even make up for the resources used to set up the regulation and enforce it. As someone else says, we sell it in Europe and we’re fine. We also sell detergent and people know not to put it in their cereal.
- sidewndr46 2y agoAlcohol also kills people. We don't prohibit that.
- Our_Benefactors 2y agoWe do however prohibit stuff like country moonshine. That would be a better comparison.
- kerkeslager 2y agoSo? "We have other similar laws" isn't a good reason to regulate something.
- sidewndr46 2y agothat's more about tax revenue than anything else
- Scoundreller 2y agowe should create safer alternatives to alcohol that do the job
- rightbyte 2y agoSure I am not going to feed it to babies or drink it my self even. For cheese you want the bacteria alive though in the milk.