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

FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#71

Post by amarant »

delecti wrote: post #27
carabiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would get in the way of Arstechnica's hyper liberal bias. I eat raw cheese because it tastes good. It's common in France, like in reblochon and Brie de meaux. There aren't mass deaths in France because of this.

But is it better , or just more traditional? France is a country that cares a lot about food tradition.

It is better. We have a decently strong cheese tradition in Sweden too, but French cheese is tastier.

I don't even like the French, their culture is obnoxious, I'd take every chance to shit on the French. But you just can't argue with their cheese, it's that good. Some of their wines are ok too, but I mostly prefer Italian on that front.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#72

Post by autoexec »

legitster wrote: post #53

> Pasteurization is a simple process of briefly heating milk and other products to a temperature that can kill disease-causing germs. The FDA has highlighted studies finding that pasteurization does not negatively affect the nutritional value of milk. Still, advocates of raw milk continue to claim, without evidence, that raw dairy has benefits. This is a bit disingenuous of the reporter to include this. The appeal of…

> Whether or not it's 'healthier' is kind of ephemeral and not really for the FDA to decide.

Some raw milk producers and nut jobs claim that raw milk will cure or treat things like allergies, asthma, psoriasis, diabetes, high blood pressure, lactose intolerance, and arthritis. Those kinds of false claims along with their unproven claims on the nutritional difference are exactly what the FDA is supposed to address.

Flavor is ephemeral. Whether or not something contains a vitamin or cures asthma is not.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#74

Post by deepvibrations »

scottyah wrote: post #69
deepvibrations wrote: post #37

Good customer and pro-dairy "Health" Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may help his friends out here. He himself is very pro-dairy, (thanks to lobby groups i imagine... Several dietary advisers appointed during his tenure have ties to the meat and dairy industry.

Or he's just a traditionalist as he's stated many times, and for a Western European cow (and all derivative products like milk, cheese, beef) are up there with wheat. Bread and butter is a common phrase. Or there is some big conspiracy and he's trying to get rich at the detriment to his own health, or he's trying to get rich and his entire persona and diet is fake?

Well yes, maybe a bit of both? Under the current administration, the dairy lobby has moved from being defensive (protecting subsidies) to being offensive - leveraging Secretary Kennedy's love milk/dairy to expand their market share within federal health policy. These PACs have a lot of money to throw around, so I am naturally a little suspicious. And I'll give him putting steak at the top of the new food pyramid , but having cheese literally at the top?? That's too much...

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#75

Post by deeg »

roryirvine wrote: post #17
giraffe_lady wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's almost no discernible difference between unhomogenized pasteurized milk and raw milk, both tasted directly and in the final cheese. As a working chef* I had to be taught to detect the difference, and now that I'm not doing it regularly I doubt I even could. * at the time at a michelin star restaurant, not to brag but because the finesse of my palate is directly relevant and likely to be called into question.

Isn't most good cheese unpasteurised? Comte, Roquefort, Gruyere, Epoisses, Parmesan, even many (most?) small-producer Cheddars.

I'm a big fan of cheese and have researched this a bit. The consensus seems to be if two cheeses were made with the exact same process except for using past/unpast then you might be able to tell a difference (especially for younger cheeses) but one isn't necessarily better than the other. Over the years cheese makers have learned how to get the best flavor out of the base milk. So a pasteurized brie will be just as good as an unpasteurized brie but made slightly different.

I've tried doing taste comparisons between past/unpast but there's so much variation for even the exact same cheese that I've never been able to detect a meaningful difference.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#76

Post by Asmod4n »

delecti wrote: post #27
carabiner wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would get in the way of Arstechnica's hyper liberal bias. I eat raw cheese because it tastes good. It's common in France, like in reblochon and Brie de meaux. There aren't mass deaths in France because of this.

But is it better , or just more traditional? France is a country that cares a lot about food tradition.

There is no taste difference, it’s just cheaper to produce since you can skip heating it for a few minutes.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#77

Post by alex43578 »

comrade1234 wrote: post #28
alex43578 wrote: post #25

People’s blindness to the benefits of things like pasteurization, washing their hands, and vaccines is crazy to me. What’s the next trend? Don’t refrigerate meat because “big-fridge” is out to get ya?

Fermented meat is a thing. I know the thought of it is disgusting but corned beef is fermented meat. The best is when the bacteria eat at the connective and the meat gets a slightly foam texture. I make it about once a year.

You get what I'm saying though, right? When I say washing hands, I'm not discounting the benefits/viability of hand sanitizer.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#78

Post by alex43578 »

andrewflnr wrote: post #45
torlok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apples and oranges. Derailing an argument with tangential topics will never cease to piss me off.

I just thought they were raising an interesting fact. It's not like "lol antivaxxers" was much of an "argument" to derail anyway.

I'll have to revise my original comment to say: "don't refrigerate, ferment, can, cure, dry, brine, pickle..."

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#79

Post by fhn »

scottyah wrote: post #69
deepvibrations wrote: post #37

Good customer and pro-dairy "Health" Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. may help his friends out here. He himself is very pro-dairy, (thanks to lobby groups i imagine... Several dietary advisers appointed during his tenure have ties to the meat and dairy industry.

Or he's just a traditionalist as he's stated many times, and for a Western European cow (and all derivative products like milk, cheese, beef) are up there with wheat. Bread and butter is a common phrase. Or there is some big conspiracy and he's trying to get rich at the detriment to his own health, or he's trying to get rich and his entire persona and diet is fake?

what does traditionalist mean? He's antivax. He should pasteurize either. I hope he doesn't take flu shots or even go to the hospital because that is just unnatural. Who need medicine when he can just eat tomato leaves.

Re: FDA links raw cheese to outbreak; Makers "100% disagree," refuse recall

#80

Post by orwin »

jhawk28 wrote: post #46
pingou wrote: post #3

"The FDA has highlighted studies finding that pasteurization does not negatively affect the nutritional value of milk. Still, advocates of raw milk continue to claim, without evidence, that raw dairy has benefits." Well, perhaps it has taste benefits?

There is no taste difference between raw and pasteurized milk. The taste comes from the container. If you have both in glass, there is no discernible difference. My father is a dairy farmer and bet his professor (many years ago) that he could taste the difference. The professor setup a blind taste test where he gave my father pasteurized and raw milk in glass cups. There was no difference. "Nutritional value" is a ve…

Depends on the pasteurization method. UHT will change the taste 100%, normal pasteurization might not. My grandmother used to pasterize her milk at a slightly higher than needed temperature, to separate the cream, and eat it on the side. Raw milk/pasterized milk with cream have the same taste, when you remove the cream though, it changes.

Honestly that's the best way to consume milk, pasterize it yourself, that will allow you to control the taste and the fat % you tolerate in your milk.

Post reply on HN