Raw Foods Raid - The Fight For the Right To Eat What You Want

THANK you for putting that into perspective .

You lose. This issue IS a labeling issue. The FDA does not inspect much until people start getting sick. Then it takes weeks to track down the exact problem. Labeling (small stickers already in use) everything to point of origin and processing. This includes All imports as well. If restaurant and consumers know exactly where food starts decisions on quality of product will be easer to determine not to mention the ease of tracking if people start getting sick.

I can completely agree with that. Labeling should be a matter of pride in your product.

Well said.

To be fair, I have not heard either one of them advocate banning you from raising a cow and drinking the milk from it. The issue is whether or not you can sell it to someone else. While I disagree with them, still, I like to be fair, and that is not what they are advocating so far as I have understood the conversation/debate thus far.

Have you actually read the bill? Are you basing your opinions on people who are "interpreting" what they think the bill means? NO where does it says seeds. It is paranoids who see Monsanto under every bed who come up with that bullshit.

I am not sure what Bill this guy is talking about but I will say Monsanto IS the devil...lol..

You really think Monsanto and other like them are not behind the bill and the the intent isn't hurt people .. wake up ..Raids like the one this video are happening becuase some hate what is changing their income. There is someone does not like it that people are going to do grow their own.. I read it and I understand intet vs real action and what will end up hurting many.. its not paranoia its doing real research and take the time to look at everything and not a few lines in 3 inch paper this bill is it is made to mislead people..
but if you are all aglow with it do't bitch when tehy come shut down the farms you have ..

CC

about the same time we see the death panels, 500% ammo tax and George Soros ruling the world.

Meat is meat and a man must eat.

If God did not want man to eat animals then why did he make them out of meat????? Excuse, my rare steak is done. Time for chow.

Humans are born with the genetic expression of an enzyme called elastase by enterocytes in the GI tract. This enzyme does nothing but break down animal protein for digestion.

I don't believe in God

Meat is life. Humans are meat!

It was something my South African friend would say while cooking large amounts of meat. Don't think I really had a point; it just kind of popped out of my fingers.

I assume your talking about the "low Carb" atkins diet that took off? If you are, most people stopped doing that about 10 years ago.

It does not protect us from giant corporations and what they WANT to do with our food , only , the little guy . It does not label GMO's which most people favor -- You can eat what you want . I jut want the freedom to eat what I want , please . Clearly , you think YOU have the right to take that from ME . Do not expect me to agree with , or go along with that .

I have no problem with the Government insuring standards of cleanliness. The FDA does not spank any big corporations....if a corporation knowingly violates sanitation standards...like Bridgestone, knowingly selling those tires because they calculated the costs would be cheaper to settle any lawsuits as a result of death or injury than to recall them. What punishment was meted out by the government there?

A prequalifier is simply a way for you to dismiss whatever you do not agree with.

Comparing poison hemlock to raw milk, Come on. I grew up on raw foods as did many of my friends, milk included. I have yet to meet these poisoned people. I would agree that overall in a global society, shipping raw milk everywhere is a bad idea. But locally consumed products should not be governed by the same laws and the people buying these products ARE educated and feel secure in what they are putting in there bodies. Your argument would be served better if the FDA approved egg farm had not just had to recall over a BILLION eggs. Cleanliness and awareness are our biggest protection.

Yes, Hemlock is poisonous. It is also natural. Natural does NOT mean Healthy. All through that video people were using the two words as synonyms.

So you grew up on raw milk and never had problems- good for you. There are people who have sex without condoms with total strangers and never get AIDS. What is important is the statistics, not the individuals who are exceptions.

That is my point- people do not realize that Louis Pasteur came up with pasteurization not because of some corporate propaganda. He did it because of science- Microbes. They are real, they are not up for debate.

Why do you draw the line at shipping it everywhere vs being sold locally?

Even when sold locally, you have no idea how long it was sitting on the shelf. There are no health inspectors or regulations involved.

The line is drawn as soon as someone establishes a business, and puts products up for sale. Then, they must be held accountable for what they sell.

The fact that the FDA is imperfect does not excuse this in the least.

That's like saying because one cop is a thief, that all cops are thieves, and that everyone should be allowed to steal.

You say:
"Cleanliness and awareness are our biggest protection."

Yes, and that's the point.
It is important to clean the milk of microbes by pasteurizing it.
It is important to be aware of science, and why we do things, and what life was like BEFORE pasteurization, and immunizations, and the rest of medical science.

When we discovered that disease is caused by tiny creatures not demonic possession, that was a HUGE revolution in thought. It is stupid to go backwards and forget about all of those microbes that exist everywhere.

Good luck trying to radiate your food into safety. Mutation is part of life and constantly killing all bacteria is weakening human genetics as a whole. When your plan hits the eventual impasse of a completely weakened immune system you can find a cure in those of us who have been consuming NATURAL foods. The real crime IS the antibiotics being pumped into our factory farmed food. People need to take a proactive approach to eating and overall health.

Leave the small organic hobbit's alone. No one is getting rich or cutting into YOUR beloved corporate profits.

Who said anything about radiation?

Are you actually supporting the concept of survival of the fittest, so it does not mater if 80% of people die if the remaining 20% are stronger as a result?

MY beloved corporate profits?

MINE!?!?

BELOVED!?!?

Damn fool, you have no clue what you are talking about or who you are talking to.

How about this- and I'm shocked how many people I have to explain this to:
First, read comments.
Then, reply to the comments based on what you read.

Reading things INTO their comments and replying based on that just makes you look stupid.
Jumping down slippery slopes just makes you look stupid.
Strawmen just make you look stupid.
Hyperbolye just makes you look stupid.

I will do you a favor- I will forget that reply ever happened.
You can have a do-over.

Why should you care what anyone puts in their body. Just let people be Free. You want me to tell you what to eat?

So you only care if they exchange paper for raw milk. Meaning money is printed on paper. Come on I'm baggin my head here. Ah Fuck it! Get your Federal reserve note out. LOL

Indeed! that's my point, and although I'd not eat raw food myself it is a matter of free choice and self determination, and for far too long that right has been violated by government and private organizations who think they know better then we do and treat us like children! it is about the freedom to make ones own choices for oneself no matter how ill conceived those decisions might be,as long as you don't hurt anyone else in doing so!

If those who get sick don't use our health care system or rely on insurance, then sure, knock yourselves out - literally. If they do, then why should my premiums rise because of the stupidity and carelessness of others. I'm all for regulating what we put in our bodies because most Americans are too uneducated about diet and nutrition to know they're slowly killing themselves.

Wow Utopia you are full of yourself. Always going around calling people, stupid, moron, idiot, fool. Come on time to grow up. It's getting to the point where it is beyond pathetic.
Just one question. How did ya get so smart? LOL!

Read what I said again- more closely.

I said:

They seem to think this is a civil rights issue, when the reality is they are simply a company conning the consumers with false advertising.

"Natural" does NOT mean "Healthy".

This is not about the right to eat what you want.
If you have a cow and want to drink the raw mink, no one will stop you.
If you want to give it to friends and family, no one will stop you.
If you SELL it then it becomes within the government's jurisdiction.

Heck, I'm lactose intolerant

So you want Government to watch over Rummage salesl Ohh my grandma is having a bake sale for church next week. You want the government there. How about this kid this summer selling lemonade on the corner. Government should protect us from his lemonade because he wants a quarter for it.

I don't want people who eat meat to affect my health innsurance premiums or people who drink, or people who smoke, or people who eat too much sugar. You enjoy any of this stuff? The list could go on and on.

And that was what is called a slippery slope.

If you don't want people to call you stupid, then don't post stupid things.

"They seem to think this is a civil rights issue, when the reality is they are simply a company conning the consumers with false advertising."

Do you mean that saying natural instead of healthy is false advertising? Because it isn't. If something says natural and the consumer assumes that it means healthy, that is purely due to the consumers idiocy. Now, if something said healthy, and it wasn't, different story.

So far your list sounds great.

Chill out. The people buying the product understand the risk. Sorry about the radiation and corporate part of my comment. The truth is in OUR society and market, the protections that are there are good. If you want the benefits of raw food you must first wake up. I enjoyed looking stupid until everyone started whispering shit I couldn't hear.

I will be alright without a do-over and; over.

Well that was your do-over, and it was an improvement.

The problem is you assume that all of the consumers know the risks involved.

Do they? They sign a form indicating they realize the products are not pasteurized, but are they given a pamphlet explaining form a neutral scientific perspective what pasteurization is, why it is done, and the specific diseases you can get if you drink unpasteurized milk?

And that those rather huge risks are to be weighed against what benifit- being trendy?

It's false advertising in the same way that a TV commercial claiming that if some shlub uses AXE body spray they will get hot chicks fawning all over them is false advertising.

It is not stated directly, but it is implied- all done for the purpose of selling a product that would not be purchased at all if there was no such suggestion.

If it were not for the connotation that AXE body spray attracts women who are out of their league, no teen male would buy AXE body spray.

If it were not for the connotation that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk no one would buy raw milk.

Lack of intelligence is your argument. Nutrition is not trendy oh wait this IS America It may be. The last election showed that Americans would not read the pamphlet if it was provided. Sooooo You would save the people from their natural and healthy food Because you want to deny that raw food is more nutritious. Fine but people are still going to get ill from lack of nutrition and poor handling practices. In the video, did you notice how clean that farm was? I have worked in a commercial dairy. Stinky and shitty are the words that come to mind. I have also lived on farms and milked cows by hand. It is two completely different experiences and you really have to experience it to understand my point of view.

I will say it again. You are right to pasteurize for the masses. The rest of us will go on eating a higher standard of food.

Hmm... I suppose it's a fine line between false advertising and consumer idiocy.

No, lack of intelligence is not my argument.
Consumers lacking information is my argument.
The problem is you assume that all of the consumers know the risks involved.

Do they? They sign a form indicating they realize the products are not pasteurized, but are they given a pamphlet explaining form a neutral scientific perspective what pasteurization is, why it is done, and the specific diseases you can get if you drink unpasteurized milk?

And that those rather huge risks are to be weighed against what benifit- being trendy?

No, I did not say nutrition is trendy.
I said believing that everything natural is nutritious is trendy.

In other words, your position is so weak, that you feel the only way you can support it is to misrepresent mine.

You say:
"You would save the people from their natural and healthy food Because you want to deny that raw food is more nutritious."

You are doing exactly what I said was the problem- you are equating "natural" with "healthy" and pretending that raw food is more nutritious. You are clinging to an almost religious belief based on lack of information.

"In the video, did you notice how clean that farm was?"

Do you realize you can't see microbes in a video?

"The rest of us will go on eating a higher standard of food."

No, you simply are manipulated into believing it's a higher standard.
The rest of us like to base our decisions on facts, and pity those who do not.

Bring some facts then. Have you ever milked a cow? Have you ever fed a cow? Have YOU ever shoveled cow shit? Have you ever planted a crop, cared for, and harvested? I have done all of these things and still do. Many of us take our food very seriously. We are proactive in cleaning and in overall sanitation. Grow up! I FUCKING agreed with you about the overall usefulness of pasteurization. Have you talked to even one of the people who shop at Rawsome foods to find out what they know or believe? You attack my belief with your belief. So I will go on eating MY superior food. I hope it does not make YOU sick. Thanks for caring so much about what I put into My body.

This is absolutely about the right to eat what you want. Why does the government have a right to tell me what I can or can not buy from my neighboor?

Your analogy implies it should be illegal to engage in sexual activities without a condom...is this what you are condoning?

This is not about the right to eat what you want.
If you have a cow and want to drink the raw mink, no one will stop you.
If you want to give it to friends and family, no one will stop you.
If you SELL it then it becomes within the government's jurisdiction.

And your reply is a slippery slope argument used as a strawman.
Are you condoning the use of blatant fallacies of reasoning?

YOU made the analogy, not me. What you are saying is that you have a right to tell me that I can not buy unpasteurized milk from my neighboor.

The Academy "has reviewed both the nutritional properties and the safety records of raw milk and has found that the risks outweigh the benefits," he declared. "There are no benefits of raw milk that would outweigh the extreme risk of infection that sometimes follows feeding raw milk products to infants, children with malignancies, and children with problems involving the immune system."

Opinion. You and the good doctor can enjoy your view. I for one will be defending my right to eat and drink and smoke what I want. Because a Doctor studies something does not make it fact. Just ask John McCain. A study is only valid if it promotes your point of view. Anyway I am tired of agreeing with you. Why don't you present a counter study so WE can tell that you have looked at this issue objectively.

Thats good for you but not good for your children who are much more susceptible to E Coli or other infectious diseases.

I will raise my children teaching them to read and to critically think about the choices they make in life. ANYONE who feeds their child fast-food is guilty of child abuse. We are all susceptible to E Coli. That is why I am proactive about what I eat and feed my family. Worrying about raw foods over the antibiotics being feed to our Food, seems like ignoring a sleeping lion.

Antibiotics in food certainly can lead to resistant bugs in the long wrong. One case of food poisoning can kill a child in matter of days. I try to worry about the immediate danger first.

Again, there is a difference between opinions and facts.
Not every study has a counter-study to contradict it.
There really is such a thing as facts.
The rest of us like to base our decisions on facts, and pity those who do not.

And yet there are conunter studies on this particular topic. You just choose to use what you interpret as facts to decide what I can and can not eat, or BUY from my neighboor.

Please TELL me how I can completely protect from immediate danger.

OK, then show the counter-studies.

Where do you fall on climate science? Man made? Galactic anomaly? I say man made and if we don't address it immediately getting food at all will be a challenge. In the mean time I will be moving to a neighborhood near you and eating what ever food I find attractive. (Just kidding about moving to be near you.)

wear my seatbelt. Change the batteries in my smoke detector. Exercise more. Dont Jaywalk.

Why does no one discuss that fact that what we are debating here is just one tiny piece of this bill? If you follow its progress there are already negotiations to provide exemptions to small producers and farms. There are bigger issues here such at commercial meat packer, megafarms and food producers which need better regulation.

I fall on climate change the same as I fall on pasteurization, vaccination, evolution, gravity, the shape of the earth and the structure of the solar system.

I accept the conclusions of scientific process, as verified by peer review, as demonstrated by the consensus of published information on the topic from reputable sources.

I don't allow my opinions to replace actual facts,
instead I change my opinions based ON the facts provided.

Your silly, silly. What about the flu shot? or or or Meanwhile life goes on. Wake up be awake and alive. Live with love, not fear.

Every time I see a line for flu shots i think i should get one. However, i hate needles so I take my chances. We don't always do whats good for us like not drink raw milk or allow people to sell food without regulation.

I am amazed anyone is still alive in central and south america what without food regulation and all. The only reason we can have this type of regulation is basic compliance and infrastructure. Keep fighting the good fight Mik661.

Which conclusion do you accept? Based on what facts? Do you really have all the real facts or is there way more to discover? Like would it be possible for the amount of constant oxygen you breath to affect the way you digest food or absorb vitamins or fight infection? All I am getting at is I do not believe that we possess ALL the so called facts that govern our perceived choices. I think that personal positive or negative believes govern our over all health more then science is aware of or can explain.

And there lies the problem. Science does not actively (Publicly) debate using agreed upon facts. Also science tends to not take on topics that don't adhere to popular scientific belief. Career killers.

Hey, i just noticed "Long wrong" Did you mean that because if so that is a great word play.(long con)

Agreed, and I was not aware of the exceptions in the Bill.

Serious?

You ask:
"Which conclusion do you accept? Based on what facts?"

I said:
I accept the conclusions of scientific process, as verified by peer review, as demonstrated by the consensus of published information on the topic from reputable sources.

You ask:
"Do you really have all the real facts or is there way more to discover?"

I said:
I don't allow my opinions to replace actual facts, instead I change my opinions based ON the facts provided.

That means that as new facts come in, scientific conclusions change. That is the wonderful thing about science- it changes based on the evidence provided. Rejecting scientific conclusions because their MIGHT be evidence we don't know is idiotic- it's like saying the earth MIGHT be flat, we just have not figured out how our perception of space-time creates this spherical illusion.

All of the evidence available to us now points to a single conclusion- the earth is round. If you think something else, provide the evidence to suport it.

"Science does not actively (Publicly) debate using agreed upon facts."

Yes, they do. It's called publishing. Most major scientific journals are available online, although some require you to register or subscribe.

"Also science tends to not take on topics that don't adhere to popular scientific belief."

The topic is milk, not UFOs or bigfoot. There is no stigma with this.

http://article.st

That is not a study, that is an article. That was an article about a convention, and the whole article was about diferent countries and their laws about selling raw mink.

The one study that was slightly mentioned was about children raised on farms. It said nothing about a control group of children raised on farms who drank pasteurized milk for comparison. As that paragraph said, so many other factors come into play- living in the country without a bunch of car exhaust like in the city I'm sure is a huge factor.

The article even said straight out:
"I’ve tended not to focus heavily on the health benefits of raw milk, since research results remain sketchy".

And from the article:
"It was a high-energy day at the Raw Milk Symposium, put on by the Farm-to-Consumer Foundation".

Not only is it an article from a biased source, even it states the science to support their views is "sketchy".

I'm going to quote another post put up recently, about Bob Inglis speaking out about climate change:

Because 98 of the doctors say, “Do this thing,” two say, “Do the other.” So, it’s on the record. And we’re here with important decision to be made. ... And as a result, if we wake up in several years and we say, “geez, this didn’t work very well for us. The two doctors didn’t turn out to be so right. 98 might have been the ones to listen to."

That is what is going on here.
You are not basing your conclusions on science.
You are trying to imagine that science bends to the whims of your opinion.
You ignore the 98% of scientists to focus on the 2% you agree with.

You have still only stated that you side with published science. I would tend to agree with you, but I STILL see people smoking cigarettes. Mutations are going to occur in our warming world. The whole world is changing and a militant adherence to perceived good will only clog the justice system and in the end lead to fascists putting those who disagree with them to death.

The last administration should serve as a great example of how science can be manipulated to promote a certain agenda. In other words Science is not the driving force behind society. You may be right in your views you may also be ill informed. The alter of science requires faith as does the alter of god. My view is to be constantly processing and looking at new information. I am not feeding raw milk to children but I am also not blowing up families that are still living in the stone age. The Government is out of control, AND that is what this article is really about.

Comment spaghetti. I have only been about 50% serious in this comment thread. UtopianSky is rather out spoken and I wanted to see what was behind his need to bust a move on the raw food crowd. The government would be better serving the people by waiting for a truly illegal large raw dairy operation that is causing sickness. We already know that lots of other legal foods and additives cause major health problems, but for some reason it is just fine to feed your child trans-fat.

In what way was I "busting a move on the raw food crowd"?

That is all your projection, and it has nothing to do with anything whatsoever that I've said, or ever said.

My problem with this is the obvious anti-intellectualism.

People who think science is arbitrary, that there is no difference between fact and opinion, that if some salesman tells you snake oil is going to make you live to be a hundred you simply believe them. It does not mater that thousands of research studies prove that snake oil is not going to do a damn thing to lengthen you life; and in fact just might shorten it.

That mental attitude is part of the Dumming of America.

When on EARTH have I ever said it's good to eat trans-fat?
Did you even read my posts in this thread?

This is what I wrote:

"The only problem here is that the government goes after people like this (as they should) but they don't go after McDonalds and Twinkies.
There are little guy criminals and big guy criminals- all should go down."

From the beginning, with you screaming "radiation" and "beloved corporate profits", to now with "bust a move" and "trans-fats", you are ignoring the points I bring up, projecting truly bizarre positions onto me, and arguing against those.

This conversation has been one huge strawman based on your inability to read.

Here is your problem:

"You may be right in your views you may also be ill informed. The alter of science requires faith as does the alter of god."

No, it does not.
Rocks are rocks.
You do not need faith in a rock for it to be a rock.
It is, and was, and always will be, a rock.

There are such things as FACTS.
Facts are not opinions, they are facts.
Facts are good things.
Study of facts gave you the computer you are sitting in front of.
Not opinions- FACTS.

Religion is purely arbitrary.
No Facts involved.
Science is not a religion.
Reality is not a belief.

When facts differ from your beliefs, smart people CHANGE THEIR BELIEFS.
Instead, you cling to your beliefs, and reject facts as simply being some other belief.

This is a serious psychological problem.

You say:
"My view is to be constantly processing and looking at new information"

Except, you are not doing that.

Here are your claims:
"You would save the people from their natural and healthy food Because you want to deny that raw food is more nutritious.
I will say it again. You are right to pasteurize for the masses. The rest of us will go on eating a higher standard of food."

You claim raw milk is more nutritious.
You claim it's a higher standard of food.
This claim is false.
I posted the information that proves it false.
Have you processed the new information?

Or are you just being a total jackass on purpose?

this bill is like many other bills including the health care reform in its broadness. How it is really going to play out in real life is all in the regulatory details. The bill really doesn't outlaw anything what it does is require certain documentations to be made and kept available for inspection. It gives government the legal basis to regulate standards and safety requirements. An exemption for gardens and small businesses are is currently being negotiated in committee.

Try this angle. Large food companies have been caught with their pants down lately, Contaminated meat. Contaminated peanuts. Contaminated vegetables. This new legislation is aimed at them more than the small mom and pops we have been debating in this thread. They know the hammer is coming down so how do you fight food safety without a PR disaster? You start a guerrilla campaign painting the bill in just the sort of light we see here on this page. Make it all about individual rights, scary government and conspiracy theories. Spread it around viral on the net. Get everyone worked up. Personally I believe that any single piece of Federal legislation on any subject could be blown up into an evil plot against freedom and the American way. "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made". Otto Von Bismarck

You have posted nothing that proves anything except your need to control the conversation. YOU have a less then functioning sense of humor. My fucking believes are mine. I never tried to promote them as fact. I do not believe the so called facts you presented fully investigated all of the factors that go into producing milk; including, cow food (different types) and overall animal treatment and breed. I am starting to think you really take yourself to seriously. Why don't you come to Oregon and you and I can do some fishing, maybe a little cow tipping for good measure. I live in a very diverse little community and I am sure that many of my good friends would completely agree with your point of view. My view does not have so many points.

You say:

"My view does not have so many points."

On that I can agree.

A rock ceases to be a rock if Obama confirms it and a republican congressman hears it. Reality is a belief. Over half the population of the world believes God is a reality. Their whole life is structured around that which is real to them. You and I probably do not (believe in god) though, I will not speak for you. My biggest gripe is that in terms of sickness the energy needs to go into bringing up the quality of the factory farms and start labeling all foods properly. Every farm should have their own sticker on every vegetable and meat/dairy product. If it gets processed separate from the farm, then another sticker should be attached. In this way ANY illness stemming from food can be immediately tracked and contained. Raw milk is a non issue because it does not have the shelf life; of course it should be labeled as well. Laws that protect the masses from the tiny little farmer but ignore the abuses of the corporate giants are stupid and a strike against everyones freedom.

As long as the small farm exemption is applied. Small agriculture is very important in a society where the banking sector can crash the economy at will. I have read the bill and feel it is an over reach. There are a few things I do agree with to give the FDA sharper teeth when dealing with large corporations. If you are big enough to poison tens of thousands of people, you need to be fully vetted operation. I think public inspection should be a requirement.

Agreed, though I will say that most Federal Legislation is almost always a violation of rights...lol..

Utopian, I agree with the dangers of drinking Raw Milk...I myself only drink pasteurized milk. I do however disagree with the government raiding a small local Raw Milk farm. This is not to protect the greater good, to think otherwise is to ignore the history of the FDA and Agri-Business. The FDA created the "Food Pyramid." This concept of the healthy "pyramid" of our daily food needs was approved by numerous "doctor's. However, the "food pyramid" itself was a construct of the Meat and Dairy industry, they themselves put the "food pyramid" together.

My own personal belief is that drinking unpasteurized milk is dangerous. I also think that if my neighboor wants to milk his goats and sell 50 gallons a week to a local, PRIVATE, food co-op, they have every right to.

The only other thing I will say is that Facts are not created through consensus and peer review. To believe such a thing is ignorance. Again, not that I disagree on this particular topic, pasteurized milk is much safer, whether or not it is healthier, that is up for debate. But it is DEFINITELY safer. Of that I have no doubt.

The Fed giveth the Fed taketh away.

Bulllllll shitttttt

You are completely correct.

It is one thing to rebel against hormones being injected into cattle-
it is another to fight against pasteurization.

That is just idiotic.

Pasteurize to your hearts content. This fight is not about pasteurization, this is about YOU telling someone what they can and can not eat. If I want to drink Raw Milk, and I know the risks, then it is none of your business. Or do you think otherwise? Do you think you have a right to tell me I can not buy raw milk from my neighboor?