On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Sandra Clark <sclarkli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > So if the government finds that raw milk is so dangerous, aren't > cantaloupe, peanuts and spinach even more dangerous? Not to mention > pastuerized milk which is created by cows raised in filthy conditions and > suffering from Mastisis which puts pus in the milk, but who cares? We'll > just pastuerize the milk and it will be clean for people to drink.
I agree with you that raw milk should be allowed and is probably healthier for you than pasteurized (though I don't drink milk at all, so tis a moot point for me). However, the numbers you cite don't really work. Yes, in absolute terms, spinach, et. al caused more adverse events and deaths than raw milk. Raw milk, however, is not easily available to most folks and therefore the amount consumed is completely dwarfed by the amount of spinich, nuts, sprouts, etc consumed by individuals. If you looked the number of adverse events and deaths per unit of that item consumed, you'd come out with strikingly different numbers that are far more comparable. All that being said, we need more regulation of factory farming setups that contribute to salmonella outbreaks in mass-produced vegetable production and we should, by all means, encourage states to adopt policies allowing for the sale and distribution of raw milk from local producers. The FDA is certainly a tool of big Ag and their policies reflect that bias and need to change. Cheers, Jud ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:348610 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
