Fundamental right to any food?

42 posts / 0 new
Last post
Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780
Fundamental right to any food?

WI judge declares that individuals have no fundamental right to own cows, drink raw milk
(NaturalNews) After being petitioned for clarification about his decision in a recent legal case involving individuals freedom to consume raw milk and own "shares" of dairy cows, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler vehemently declared that individuals "do not have a fundamental right to consume the foods of their choice," and essentially reiterated his state's position that raw milk is simply off limits.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), on behalf of Zinniker Family Farm in Elkhorn, Wi., and several other farms, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) back on Feb. 25, 2010, asking it to clarify its interpretation of the law in regards to raw milk (http://www.ftcldf.org/litigation-wi...).

Wisconsin is among the most restrictive US states as far as raw milk is concerned. Raw milk sales to consumers are prohibited -- but private cow share agreements in which individuals purchase "shares" of their own cows, are exempted. However, due to the onslaught of raids in recent years against raw dairies, private raw milk buying clubs, and even raw milk cow share programs, the plaintiffs simply wanted to clarify Wisconsin's stance concerning these alternate forms of accessing raw milk.

And they got their answer. According to a recent report by The Complete Patient, Judge Fiedler believes that no individual has a "fundamental right" to consume any food without government permission. Even though the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes that the government has no business interfering in the affairs of individuals outside of what has been specifically enumerated to it, which, of course, includes freedom of food choice, Judge Fiedler apparently believes otherwise.

To summarize Judge Fiedler's response, which was obviously written in an arrogant and condescending tone, individuals have no fundamental right to own or use dairy cows, to consume the milk from their own cows, to board their cows off their own property, or even to produce and consume the foods of their own choice, period.

You can read Judge Fiedler's entire disturbing response here:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/s...

Groups like FTCLDF will continue to challenge such illegal and unconstitutional restrictions against raw milk, particularly in individual states like Wisconsin where officials have illegally prohibited it. But individuals that value this priceless freedom must also also stand up and resist Big Brother's concerted assault against food freedom, no matter form it may take.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033727_food_freedom_cows.html#ixzz1ZMH5vPoE

This is a huge issue here as raw milk is popular here in PA. In NJ it is illegal. Farmers "smuggle" it over the border and can get in a lot of trouble. Do you believe that we as individuals have the right to consume whatever foods we choose? Do you believe that the state has the right to mandate that (informed) consumers be legally banned from drinking.....milk?

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3320

Interesting to me. Because i think of all the things in my house that i have purchased and could theoretically eat because i now own it and are a lot worse than raw milk and were never meant to be eaten.

I think they just need to bottle it with a large label that says "Not for Consumption"

Smile

In all seriousness.....i don't actually know how i feel. I could imagine a time and place where it would be appropriate for the government to make such a rule. But in this case....it seems really grey to me. Lots of people drink raw milk, why cant' they just require some sort of warning of the risks?

I mean...if we can smoke cigarettes with warnings on the boxes, why can't they sell milk with warnings? I don't see why its necessary to ban it completely.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

I understand *why* the government wants to ban the sale of raw milk. That's because we expect the food we eat to be safe, and we have charged the government with ensuring that. And the only way to ensure that milk is safe is to pasteurize it. I get that. But we can also buy & consume all kinds of other things (beer, wine, cough medicine) legally that can be harmful but we label them appropriately, and in some cases limit their sale to adults. We can also buy things that are widely known to be very susceptable to contamination & that have a history of routinely making people sick or killing them (strawberries & bean sprouts) and they aren't labeled, we just deal with it if something happens. It's a "buyer beware" kind of thing.

What they need to do is legislate that raw milk be labeled properly with some kind of warning ("Drinking unpasteurized milk can lead to illness or death") so that no one accidentally buys it instead of pasteurized milk. And then let consumers make an educated decisions about which milk to buy and what they put into their own bodies.

They also need to do away with government subsidies of the dairy industry, which is probably what is triggering this issue in another way. Probably the dairies that conform to regulation in order to get subsidies, are seeing competition from the raw milk dairies. Since they can't switch to raw milk without losing a subsidy, the other option is to try to drive out the raw milk dairies.

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

So with both of your proposals, would it need to include on the label "not for children under the age of 18" like they do for cigarettes, etc?

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

It is legal here-- but when we were "home" in Indiana this summer we bought some there. The dairy had to place a sticker on it that said "not for human consumption"-- use a kitten or puppy feed-- it was so weird to me. Yet people would come in and buy three gallons of it....

I think it should be legal and monitored. Here they "approve" raw dairies and they must adhere to cleaning and storage standards-- seems like a good compromise to me.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6698

I must live under a rock. I have never heard of not being aloud to drink raw milk. Growing up we used to go to the Amish and buy it straight from the cow.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

In Canada raw milk can't be sold or distributed but I believe people still have the right to consume what they want. Meaning if they own the cow they have every right to drink its milk. You can't give it to anyone else, but if it's for you there's no prohibition.

I do not agree whatsoever with banning the consumption of raw milk from your own cows, which is what this judge has done.

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

People should be able to eat whatever they choose. I'm alright with labels regarding known risks, and would be supportive of that.

We've got two heifers of our own and will be drinking raw milk next winter, if all goes according to plan and they have babies on schedule Smile

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"Claire'sMommy" wrote:

In Canada raw milk can't be sold or distributed but I believe people still have the right to consume what they want. Meaning if they own the cow they have every right to drink its milk. You can't give it to anyone else, but if it's for you there's no prohibition.

I do not agree whatsoever with banning the consumption of raw milk from your own cows, which is what this judge has done.

Why don't those of us who live in apartments or who live in an area that prohibits livestock get to enjoy the benefits of raw milk if we want to take the risk of drinking it? Why does the government get to tell me what food I can or cannot put into my own body?

(ETA: this is all theoretical for me. I hate milk. I only use it for cooking, and I only put enough on my cereal to soften it a bit. I get a squirrelly tummy just pouring it for my kids to drink.)

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Spacers" wrote:

Why don't those of us who live in apartments or who live in an area that prohibits livestock get to enjoy the benefits of raw milk if we want to take the risk of drinking it? Why does the government get to tell me what food I can or cannot put into my own body?

(ETA: this is all theoretical for me. I hate milk. I only use it for cooking, and I only put enough on my cereal to soften it a bit. I get a squirrelly tummy just pouring it for my kids to drink.)

Up till now the govt kind of skirted the issue of people drinking the milk by eliminating the sale and distribution. Make one thing illegal and the other kind of takes care of itself, KWIM? It's like it's not illegal to smoke pot, it's just illegal to be in possession of it, or sell it. So, how does one actually smoke pot without being in possession of it? Same sort of idea with the milk, I guess (although I'm pretty certain you can be in possession of raw milk ;)).

Also, from a liability standpoint I can kind of get why the sale/distribution is illegal. Can you imagine how many people would turn around and try to sue the FDA or CFIA because they got sick from raw milk even WITH big disclaimers on the milk cartons?

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1722

This is obviously a regional thing. Without looking it up, I would assume it's illegal in CA to sell raw milk. Where I am it wouldn't be an issue since we probably have 10 cows in a 50 mile radius.

Anyway, I suppose I can see both sides. The government has legislated what we can be exposed to (lead paint, second-hand smoke) and placed restrictions on the sale of various food products (expiration dates, exotic animal meat). So I can see the regulation on raw milk.

On the other hand, it seems to go too far for the government to regulate people drinking raw milk from their own cow.

I don't know...

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

I think unless you own the cow, the gov't should not be OK with you drinking rawmilk. I worked at the UF dairy when I was in college. This was a model dairy fro a university, so it means that it was the cleanest, most technological, best run dairy around. Even then, the amount of feces and bacteria that gets into the milk from milking numerous cows is astronomical. Dairy cows are not clean animals by any means.

So yes, if you were getting the raw milk from some Amish farmer with a few free range cows or from your own cow that you have in a pasture and control the cleaning process before milking, it may be safe enough. But when you buy it raw frmo someone else, the risk is way to great. And the risk is not like with cigarettes where the damage comes from long term use, but immediate. Camplobacter, Listeria, E.coli, staph, etc. Not because of the milk but because of the way it is collected. I justdon't get why anyone would want to put their child and themselves at that risk.

I'm not sure the exact law, but I guess I am fine with someone drinking raw milk from their own cow. But not to sell it to another person. If you live in the city and can't have a cow, well too bad. Move to the country if you want raw milk that bad. Just like if you live in the city, you can't have chickens, goats, and sheep.

KimPossible's picture
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3320

"culturedmom" wrote:

I think unless you own the cow, the gov't should not be OK with you drinking rawmilk. I worked at the UF dairy when I was in college. This was a model dairy fro a university, so it means that it was the cleanest, most technological, best run dairy around. Even then, the amount of feces and bacteria that gets into the milk from milking numerous cows is astronomical. Dairy cows are not clean animals by any means.

So yes, if you were getting the raw milk from some Amish farmer with a few free range cows or from your own cow that you have in a pasture and control the cleaning process before milking, it may be safe enough. But when you buy it raw frmo someone else, the risk is way to great. And the risk is not like with cigarettes where the damage comes from long term use, but immediate. Camplobacter, Listeria, E.coli, staph, etc. Not because of the milk but because of the way it is collected. I justdon't get why anyone would want to put their child and themselves at that risk.

I'm not sure the exact law, but I guess I am fine with someone drinking raw milk from their own cow. But not to sell it to another person. If you live in the city and can't have a cow, well too bad. Move to the country if you want raw milk that bad. Just like if you live in the city, you can't have chickens, goats, and sheep.

Well the immediate risk is like eating raw and undercooked meats. Is that banned in some places? My guess is that it probably is somewhere, but i know that i can still go to a restaurant and get a pretty raw tuna steak, and they have a warning on the menu about eating raw or undercooked meats.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well the immediate risk is like eating raw and undercooked meats. Is that banned in some places? My guess is that it probably is somewhere, but i know that i can still go to a restaurant and get a pretty raw tuna steak, and they have a warning on the menu about eating raw or undercooked meats.

I agree. I like going into a city and ordering steak tartare or some sushi.....I don't get the argument that I should have to butcher my own cow or catch my own tuna to get it. I accept the risk inherent in the choice to eat undercooked meats. A simple disclaimer on the menu alerts me to that risk. I don't understand the concept that a warning on milk could not do the same thing? We don't do much milk, but what we do we do raw (from a farm, we don't own a cow), with nary a problem, so of course I am biased.

Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1722

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well the immediate risk is like eating raw and undercooked meats. Is that banned in some places? My guess is that it probably is somewhere, but i know that i can still go to a restaurant and get a pretty raw tuna steak, and they have a warning on the menu about eating raw or undercooked meats.

Out here there is a warning on menus about consuming undercooked meat. They will not serve undercooked chicken or pork.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"KimPossible" wrote:

Well the immediate risk is like eating raw and undercooked meats. Is that banned in some places? My guess is that it probably is somewhere, but i know that i can still go to a restaurant and get a pretty raw tuna steak, and they have a warning on the menu about eating raw or undercooked meats.

It's not the same. The reason you can eat raw steak is because the bacterium are not found in the muscle tissue. It's only on the outside or in the organs or of course feces. So raw meat is fine as long as the outside is somehow cooked or has an acid (like carpacio). raw ground meat is a no no because you are mixing the outside surface with the inside, so you can no longer just kill the bacterium unless you kill it all the way through. Also, it takes time for bacteria like Salmonella to reproduce into numbers that would make you sick. Our meat is usually not cut from the carcass so the elapsed time from slaughter to table is long. Unlike raw fish such as sahimi which is usally cut off the fish before being served.

Milk is safe until it comes out of the cow. When you put the suction onto the teets, even though they dip each teet with iodine mixture, it still mak come in contact with feces on the teet. Especially in larger diaries where the best you will get is a rinse off with water and an iodine dip. When milking by hand the milk doesn't come in contact with the teet, but when using a milking cluster in amilking parlor, it does. And then it sits int he tank until it is taken. So it needs to be pasturized. And unlike cooking meat, a typical person cannot pasturize their own milk and make it safe.

And it is against the law for restaraunts to serve undercooked ground beef. Just like it should be against the law for them to serve raw milk. The issue though is you can buy rawmeat because everyone can cook it and make it safe. Not everyone can pasturize raw milk, so you can;t sell it raw expecting people to make it safe on their own.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"culturedmom" wrote:

And it is against the law for restaraunts to serve undercooked ground beef.

I've had steak tartare in several restaurants, in at least 2 or 3 different states?

Also have sashimi quite frequently ~ it is not cooked at all?

Joined: 01/18/06
Posts: 1626

There's an article in the Toronto Star news today and this was one of the comments, it made me think of this debate.

"Raw milk illegal? Raw milk is not at an increased risk of being contaminated by pathogens if the farmer is conscientious about his livestock. The real threat to the milk source is factory farming that causes infections in the milk producing cows. Criminalizing raw milk is not about protecting consumers. It's about protecting corporate factory farming which is the real threat to consumers, citizens and the planet. This is criminalizing disease and nature and it is just as ridiculous as criminalizing a plant. This society is obsessed with fear of death and someone needs to remind people that no one gets out of here alive."

Oh, Melissa, I ADORE sashimi!

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

I've had steak tartare in several restaurants, in at least 2 or 3 different states?

Also have sashimi quite frequently ~ it is not cooked at all?

But I explained that Melis. For bacteria to get to levels of making you sick, it has to have 2 thigns in raw meat....it has to be incorperated into the meat and it has to have time to reproduce to high enough numbers to make one sick. Tartare and sashimi are both dishes prepared straight from the carcass. So unless it has been sitting around a while, they are both fine dishes to consume raw.

Neither steak tartare (steak minced from whole) or sashimi (raw fish) is ground beef. I said specifically ground beef. Ground beef is beef, typically from different parts of a cow that is ground for consumption. I'm talking about the stuff you buy at the supermarket or restaruants either buy ground or ground ahead of time, for burgers and such. They cannot serve that rare.

I hope that explains it better.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"JorgieGirl" wrote:

There's an article in the Toronto Star news today and this was one of the comments, it made me think of this debate.

"Raw milk illegal? Raw milk is not at an increased risk of being contaminated by pathogens if the farmer is conscientious about his livestock. The real threat to the milk source is factory farming that causes infections in the milk producing cows. Criminalizing raw milk is not about protecting consumers. It's about protecting corporate factory farming which is the real threat to consumers, citizens and the planet. This is criminalizing disease and nature and it is just as ridiculous as criminalizing a plant. This society is obsessed with fear of death and someone needs to remind people that no one gets out of here alive."

Oh, Melissa, I ADORE sashimi!

That's fine, but I ahve worked a spell in a dairy and there is no way anyone can convince me that drinking raw milk from a dairy parlor that uses mechanical milkers (as do most if not all dairy farms where we get our milk) is safe to drink. Other then milk the ost prevalent thing in a dairy parlor is sh*t. And because a dairy cow's diet is mostly corn, silage, and hay, their manure is watery and messy. And becasue they usually breed them in such a way that produces small hooves, they lay down a lot. yes it sucks. And yes it is all about making it easier and more profitable for companies. But until it changes, unless you are drinking milk from a hand milked cow....I would be scared to drink raw milk. Call me paranoid then.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Okay, I'm confused? The tartare I have is ground beef (with raw egg and various accoutrements) ~ is that something different than what you are talking about?

And I totally agree about raw milk from an industrial dairy ~ but do you think the same when they are grass fed pastured animals who are hand milked?

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

Okay, I'm confused? The tartare I have is ground beef (with raw egg and various accoutrements) ~ is that something different than what you are talking about?

And I totally agree about raw milk from an industrial dairy ~ but do you think the same when they are grass fed pastured animals who are hand milked?

Same reason you could drink milk straight from the cow that has been milked by hand following proper safety precautions. The steak tartare you eat at a restaurant is prepared for raw consumption. They mnce their own meat from a fresh steak, mix it with an egg, shallots, etc. and serve it right away. They do not buy the ground beef already prepared. Not sure why that is confusing.

No, I think if you milk your own cow in the proper manner by hand and then drink themilk right away, then knock yourself out. I myself have milked my own cow and drank the milk (it tastes gross IMO). But I don't think it should be OK by USDA standards to allow people to then sell that milk raw. Maybe if they had a standard and a license for raw milk processors or something. Unitl then, if you don;t ahve your own cow, then IMO it should not be ok.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

The milk (and the steak~ or ground beef or whatever Lol are definitely an acquired taste, I agree with you there. Seeing the cream on top of your milk is definitely skeevy at first, for those accustomed to milk from the store. It absolutely tastes nothing like the stuff from the store ~ heated into oblivion. Even the ice cream is way different, Nate hated it at first, calling it "gamey", which I can't disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse, I just knew it as "ground beef", I didn't realize that the restaurant did it differently (or made it from different parts) than our farm does. I thought maybe you were talking about a different kind of tartare (as I know that in lots of different places they may sear it or use different cuts or whatnot). I guess I got hung up on the "ground beef" aspect of it all.

I guess I just laugh at the idea that it is okay to eat lighter fluid (TBHQ) in chicken nuggets, but not to voluntarily and knowledgeably ingest raw milk, if one chooses to do so. I think that the average consumer of things like chicken nuggets ingests them with way less informed consent than does the average consumer of raw milk. Therein lies my problem with the legislation.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

The milk (and the steak~ or ground beef or whatever Lol are definitely an acquired taste, I agree with you there. Seeing the creme on top of your milk is definitely skeevy at first, for those accustomed to milk from the store. It absolutely tastes nothing like the stuff from the store ~ heated into oblivion. Even the ice cream is way different, Nate hated it at first, calling it "gamey", which I can't disagree with.

I wasn't trying to be obtuse, I just knew it as "ground beef", I didn't realize that the restaurant did it differently (or made it from different parts) than our farm does. I thought maybe you were talking about a different kind of tartare (as I know that in lots of different places they may sear it or use different cuts or whatnot). I guess I got hung up on the "ground beef" aspect of it all.

I guess I just laugh at the idea that it is okay to eat lighter fluid (TBHQ) in chicken nuggets, but not to voluntarily and knowledgeably ingest raw milk, if one chooses to do so. I think that the average consumer of things like chicken nuggets ingests them with way less informed consent than does the average consumer of raw milk. Therein lies my problem with the legislation.

That maybe so, but the problem lies in mass production of food goods. We would all be healthy and fine if we had our own farms and produced our own organic veggies and fruits, milked our own cows, slaughtered our own fresh meat and chicken. But when you are talking about producing food for mass consumption, it is way worse to have unpastured milk being shipped on a week journey to then sit in a store and then a fridge and then hopefully consumed over a weeks period then it is to eat trace amounts of lighter fluid, as crazy as that sounds.

The truth is, fresh foods are meant to be consumed immediatly after harvest unless people manipulate it to last. But not everyone has the ability to do that and so we have to introduce harsh processes in order to make the food available to the masses and not kill or harmthem. Pasturization, radiation, chemical manipulation, deep freezing, etc. It's a sh*tty cycle but it has to be done so poeple can eat.

But I agree, the way to eat is as close to time of harvest as possible and to eat things that have as little manipulation as possible done to them. We don't need McDonalds or Breyer's ice cream or candy bars. But I'll tell you this, I would rather eat a 6 peice chicken McNugget with trace amounts of lighter fluid once in my life then drink raw milk that was not processed and handled correctly once in my life. Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is good. I'm sure those people who died of lysteria spent part of their lifetime eating unhealthy things like lighter fluid chicken and radiated canned beans, but they died from a fruit.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"culturedmom" wrote:

That maybe so, but the problem lies in mass production of food goods. We would all be healthy and fine if we had our own farms and produced our own organic veggies and fruits, milked our own cows, slaughtered our own fresh meat and chicken. But when you are talking about producing food for mass consumption, it is way worse to have unpastured milk being shipped on a week journey to then sit in a store and then a fridge and then hopefully consumed over a weeks period then it is to eat trace amounts of lighter fluid, as crazy as that sounds.

The truth is, fresh foods are meant to be consumed immediatly after harvest unless people manipulate it to last. But not everyone has the ability to do that and so we have to introduce harsh processes in order to make the food available to the masses and not kill or harmthem. Pasturization, radiation, chemical manipulation, deep freezing, etc. It's a sh*tty cycle but it has to be done so poeple can eat.

But I agree, the way to eat is as close to time of harvest as possible and to eat things that have as little manipulation as possible done to them. We don't need McDonalds or Breyer's ice cream or candy bars. But I'll tell you this, I would rather eat a 6 peice chicken McNugget with trace amounts of lighter fluid once in my life then drink raw milk that was not processed and handled correctly once in my life. Just because it is natural doesn't mean it is good. I'm sure those people who died of lysteria spent part of their lifetime eating unhealthy things like lighter fluid chicken and radiated canned beans, but they died from a fruit.

Oh for sure! No one could argue that raw milk is good for shipping OR for mass production. But if people have the ability to (and want to exercise) different options, why shouldn't they be able to?

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

"Potter75" wrote:

Oh for sure! No one could argue that raw milk is good for shipping OR for mass production. But if people have the ability to (and want to exercise) different options, why shouldn't they be able to?

Absolutely. If they want to buy a cow and milk it or their neighbor with a cow gives them some milk, then I say it's your stomach, go for it. But the minute you prodice it to sell, you should be under some sort of legal obligation to produce it under the confines of the law and the USDA. And if the law in WI is no selling of raw milk, then so be it. And I can't say I blame Wi for having strict laws on milk because it is WI which I believe is second only to CA in milk production (or atleast was when I was in Ag school).

I will say the article is super biased so I am taking it with a grain of saltand only debating it in a general sense.

Starryblue702's picture
Joined: 04/06/11
Posts: 5454

"KimPossible" wrote:

In all seriousness.....i don't actually know how i feel. I could imagine a time and place where it would be appropriate for the government to make such a rule. But in this case....it seems really grey to me. Lots of people drink raw milk, why cant' they just require some sort of warning of the risks?

I mean...if we can smoke cigarettes with warnings on the boxes, why can't they sell milk with warnings? I don't see why its necessary to ban it completely.

This...

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I'm thinking about ground beef and our restaurants around here *are* allowed to sell that undercooked-- same w eggs.

You can order a rare cheeseburger or eggs over soft....isn't that the same thing?

Here they voluntarily follow these "raw milk guidelines" -- do you think these are sufficient?

http://www.rawmilkcolorado.org/PDF/RMAC_Standards_10-14-2010.pdf

Joined: 06/04/07
Posts: 1368

"boilermaker" wrote:

I'm thinking about ground beef and our restaurants around here *are* allowed to sell that undercooked-- same w eggs.

You can order a rare cheeseburger or eggs over soft....isn't that the same thing?

Here they voluntarily follow these "raw milk guidelines" -- do you think these are sufficient?

http://www.rawmilkcolorado.org/PDF/RMAC_Standards_10-14-2010.pdf

Monthly testing? That sounds incredibly low. From what I know with milk manufacturers in our region, they have the drivers who pick up the raw milk check the temps and test at the time of pickup to see if they meet the minimum standards. If they don't the entire tank is rejected as they don't want to compromise the quality that was already picked up.

When purchasing raw milk, are the consumers simply trusting the farmer with the quality of milk? When selling raw milk to a consumer, is it always grade A milk and do they test each time they sell? If they test, are they sharing the results with consumers for them to make informed decisions? If not, how would a consumer know if the milk being sold to them was rejected by a processing company because the bacteria count was too high for the company's standards?

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Can soemone explain what the point of drinking raw milk over pasturized milk is anyway? Milk is high in fat and created for the purpose of feeding a calf. It has good stuff for us that our body can utilize sure, but nothign we can't get from another source. I guess I don't udnerstand the draw of buying and consuming something that could have very high probability of making you sick just because it is raw? Is there some reason that raw milk is so much more preferrable to pasturized milk and what you can get from raw milk that you can't from something else with less safety restrictions?

Honestly it just seems like a fad to tell you the truth. But I could be wrong.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I don't drink raw milk (or cow milk really much at all), so I'm only sharing what I've read from here. Some studies suggest that it is much more nutritive to drink it raw and that the high heat of pasteurization takes out some of the vitamins and minerals.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6698

Can I just say this whole discussion makes me ill? Who knew how gross milk was?? Sometimes ignorance is bliss.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I haven't found a source for organic milk that is not UHT processed. I'm not willing to drink non organic milk, and I'm not willing to drink UHT processed milk, so raw it is.

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

True-- most organic milk is UHT. We get to side step this by getting regular pasteurized milk from a local organic producer (though they can't carry the organic label just yet-- three more years on the seven year wait....)

Extra bonus is that it is delivered to my door in glass bottles twice/week and they guarantee that the milk was in the cow less than 24 hours before it shows up on your doorstep. Yes, please! And we can visit the cows in the valley. Lovely.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Who knew how gross milk was??

The fact that it is made in another mammals teat didn't get you thinking?

Milk is gross. So are eggs. So is most food involving animals. Gross to think about, and totally delicious to eat. Smile

And yes Audra, glass bottles are great!

Joined: 12/10/05
Posts: 1681

Apparently, raw milk is also often better tolerated by those with dairy allergies... So, I've heard, I haven't looked into it myself.

culturedmom's picture
Joined: 09/30/06
Posts: 1131

Ok, thanks. Still don't get it, but thanks.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I think I threw up a little reading about "gamey" ice cream.

Having said that, I think I would be okay with stores selling it with a sticker that says "Warning: Consuming raw milk may lead to infection and death." or whatever. I was on the side of not letting the stores sell it, but then someone brought up cigarettes and booze which is a pretty good point. Also, stores still sell alfalfa sprouts and strawberries and canteloupe despite documented outbreaks of listeria and salmonella and whatnot.

I wouldn't drink it though. *Shudder*

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Its delicious, Alissa Smile GOod description of it here.

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/the-quest-for-raw-milk/

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Blum 3

In fairness, I don't drink homogenized/pasteurized milk either. I agree that pretty much any animal product is gross when you think about it, but there is something that particularly skeeves me out about milk. I can't really explain it. It's not logical, since I eat dairy products like cheese and yogurt and butter, as well as eggs, meat, and honey. There's just something about milk. It's just gross.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

I hear you. I used to love milk as a kid and drank a lot of it ~ but these days none of my kids drink it and we aren't really cereal eaters, so yeah, most weeks there is no milk in the house. Other days, like today, we are making pudding with it. I don't worry about feeding it to my kids because the bulk of the time that they are ingesting it it's been cooked.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

Pudding! Now that you could get me to eat, raw milk made or otherwise. There are very few things I like better in the world than homemade chocolate pudding. *Drool*

I definitely wouldn't worry about your kids catching a food borne illness if you're cooking it. That's pretty much what pastuerizing is, anyway.