Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

modernfarmer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 271 posts

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#241

Post by blagie »

verve_rat wrote: post #215
dmurray wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dogs drink from dirty puddles all the time, and they are mostly fine.

I think we are agreeing here. I was pointing out that baby cows don't immediately die after drinking from their mothers teat, so the same would probably hold for humans.

There's a difference between:

1) Drinking raw milk from the same cow every day

2) Drinking raw milk from a different cow every day (e.g. from a small market)

3) Drinking raw milk from hundreds of random farms mixed together (e.g. as might be processed)

If a cow has a 1% chance of carrying a disease, #1 means you have a 1% chance of getting sick. #3 means you have approximately a 100% chance of getting sick. #2 means you have an estimated time of 3-6 months to get sick, depending on the size of the pool of cows.

Personally, I believe these are the sorts of risks people ought to be able to accept, but only with full knowledge and transparency both about where the milk came from, and of associated risks.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#242

Post by simulate-me »

I like drinking raw milk. It has a sweet grassy taste compared to store-bought milk. My wife grew up on a farm and it was common to drink the fresh milk while still warm.

One thing that was eye-opening to me about unhomogenized milk is that you can skim the fat and make butter. I’m sure everyone knows that, but what might be less well known is how much butter you can get. A gallon of milk makes one, maybe two tablespoons. That’s it! I’m sure industrial butter making is more efficient, but I always think about how much milk goes into a stick of butter now.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#243

Post by elhudy »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #90
folli wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor…

It must be some weird blindness to the privilege of living in a mostly well organized and safe society. The rules were established a long time ago and do their job like a well oiled IT support department. Invisible to the common person when it works well. Unfortunately they then start questioning why it is necessary.

This is such an odd conclusion I’m struggling to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to make it there. Please see my other response addressing the false equivalencies presented in the previous post.

Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#244

Post by tpush »

b112 wrote: post #151
andi999 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with raw meat? Here you can buy raw minced pork for direct consumption (on bread rolls) almost everywhere. Why should ppl get sick from that?

Raw pork meat is not fine, as pork can have many worms, and other things, humans can catch. Cooking kills these things. People eat raw eggs in North America, but that's safe because of antibiotics in chicken feed. Salmonella can kill. Beef is safer, which is why you only need char the outside to be safe.

Every single pig in Germany is checked for trichinosis upon slaughter, and the meat meant for raw consumption can only be sold the same day, with an unbroken cooling chain. This makes Mett completely safe to eat, as a lot of Germans do very regularly (me too!).

But obviously only eating raw meat doesn't sound very appetizing or nutritionally healthy.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#245

Post by lnxg33k1 »

rupi wrote: post #83

Growing up in a village in India, we only ever bought raw milk because there was no packaged milk available. Everyone had a deal with a local farmer. Every morning or evening, we would walk over to the farmer's house, pick up our milk and bring it home. My family in India (and the whole village) still does that. And this is where the similarity ends. The first thing my mom (and everyone else) did is to boil the milk…

It’s a good thing anyway and I think we should encourage more libertarians to do it

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#246

Post by Epiphany21 »

bitwize wrote: post #65

Raw milk is the vinyl (recording format) of milk. Vinyl that can give you salmonella. Still doesn't slow down its proponents from telling you how superior it is.

I'm sure both are as good as medium rare chicken.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#247

Post by skummetmaelk »

elhudy wrote: post #243
skummetmaelk wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must be some weird blindness to the privilege of living in a mostly well organized and safe society. The rules were established a long time ago and do their job like a well oiled IT support department. Invisible to the common person when it works well. Unfortunately they then start questioning why it is necessary.

This is such an odd conclusion I’m struggling to wrap my head around the mental gymnastics necessary to make it there. Please see my other response addressing the false equivalencies presented in the previous post. Btw the rules were not made “a long time ago”, the law restricting the sale of raw milk was passed in 1987 in the US.

That's the federal ban. Individual states restricted sales of raw milk prior to that.

I just find it weird that we start applying germ theory to combating tubercolosis outbreaks, find out raw milk is a problem, FDA makes recommendations to limit the sale of raw milk and sell only pasteurized milk back in the 1920's.

Now there's this whole rejection of past experience and known dangers because of a belief in the naturalistic fallacy. Not everything "natural" is good for you. Drinking milk as an adult isn't even natural. It's nice sure, but it's not natural.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#248

Post by timbit42 »

langsoul-com wrote: post #20

Everyone should be free to drink raw milk if they please. Although selling it in supermarkets might be questionable, simply because not everyone knows raw milk can stomach issues.

I think this makes sense in countries without a public healthcare system but not in countries with one because everyone is paying for your illness. I feel the same about motorcycle helmets and seat belts.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#249

Post by skummetmaelk »

elhudy wrote: post #240
folli wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? Some of the comments in this thread really left my head scratching. Food borne pathogens were a major burden on humankind for millennia, advances in microbiology and hygiene have massively improved the life span. All of that gets belittled in the comments as some minor…

>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Think about the qu…

> These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter.

Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk.

> Think about the question of limiting lead content in food stuff; the equivalency would be bacterial testing requirements in raw milk, not the restriction of consumption of raw milk. You can support advances in microbiology and hygiene without legally restricting raw milk consumption. The consumption of tuna isn’t illegal yet undoubtedly if you ate tuna every day for a few months you would likely contract lead poisoning!

The gigantic difference there is that it only takes one bad bottle of milk to kill you or make you seriously ill whereas eating something with slightly elevated lead content won't do much and only becomes a problem with long term exposure. I'm also pretty sure you don't check the lead content of every batch, but instead do sampling. You can't do that with milk because as noted it only takes one.

Re: Lawmakers Drink Raw Milk to Celebrate Legality, Become Immediately Sick (2016)

#250

Post by elhudy »

skummetmaelk wrote: post #249
elhudy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is it illegal to not wear a seat belt in most societies? Why are there limits on lead content in food stuff? Why are there any regulations at all? These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Think about the qu…

> These are false equivalencies to the question of restricting raw milk consumption. E.g., it’s illegal to not wear a seat belt because i don’t want a stranger splattered on my windshield - that affects me yet i would have had no choice in the matter. Others can get contagious diseases from milk. That affects you. You didn't make the choice to drink that raw milk. > Think about the question of limiting lead content i…

Embarrassingly, I was not aware that raw milk could carry pathogens such as TB which are spread beyond consumption - I assumed it carried all the localized pathogens as other foods (salmonella, listeria, etc.). I certainly understand your point now and retract that it is a false equivalency.

I’m still not convinced that the answer to local farmers selling raw milk to their friends should be outright jail time - rather than enforcement of testing standards. I’m not familiar enough with the upfront costs of that to know whether it’s economical. You mention it “only takes one” but the reality is contamination in raw milk is rare enough that it is also essentially a long-term risk as well, particularly when consuming from 2-3 cattle.

Again, I dont drink the stuff but i certainly sympathize with rural communities that believe it’s in their rights to do so.

Post reply on HN