E. coli outbreak in Minnesota tied to raw milk

An international dairy industry conspiracy isn't forcing pasteurization on us. Cases like this sadly illustrate why we need it.

I hold hold with it, dagnabbit!

Them commonists are always tring to control my rites to drink any dam milk i want.

:sarcasm:

I do however feel that farmers should be allowed to bottle and sell milk privately to people who seek out unpasteurized milk. If a small ranch wants a pair of cows os part of they're livestock, I see nothing wrong with them or family & friends consuming raw milk if they want - so long as they are responsible for any consequences. I would even be OK with raw milk being sold at farmers markets provided it is adequetely labelled with risks outlined on the label.

The best you can do on that front is issuing a few PSAs about raw milk and toddlers.
Kind of like feeding babies honey... there's nothing that can be solved about that except spreading the word.

should it be served to children under 8. Dangerous.

Though I don't have problems with adults consuming it if they know the risks. And if they insist on feeding their infants unpasteurized milk, they're kooks.

(I don't drink unpasteurized milk, though I have had unpasteurized cheese a couple of times. Now that I'm pregnant, I would never risk it.)

they aren't solely responsible for the consequences. We'll all end up paying for it, either via increased insurance premiums or more taxes if they receive government help.

None of us live in a vacuum. Virtually all our actions have consequences for others.

Should we ban medium-rare steaks and sushi or raw shelfish? Should we ban driving or extracirricular athletics? MANY actions have a much greater financial impact on society than raw milk. It doesn't mean we ban them or even need legislation regarding them. Freedom has costs and a handful of people getting sick from raw milk may be one of them.

So long as the government ensures that people have the knowlege to make informed decisions, people should be allowed to live their lives freely so long as they are not endangering others lives/freedoms and can be responsible for thier actions.

It's government's job to protect ignorant people... not stupid people.

Do I, as a parent, have the right to risk my children's health?

How much risk?

Do I, as a parent, have the right to risk my children's health?
Many things you do can risk your child's health.
Do you own pets and can you guarantee they are not risks to children?
How well does your child eat? HFCS, fast foods, processed foods?
What kind of toys do kids have... Airsoft/paintball/skateboards/legos?

Risk is an everyday part of life. You can't live freely without some degree of risk.
As a parent, you certainly have the right to introduce these risks into your child's life.

How much risk? That depends on what you personally feel might be an unnecessary risk.
My wife does not eat leftovers because she feels it is risky. I think that's stupid.
I'd eat a week old donut sitting on the counter if it smelled OK.

As parents, it's our job to asses risks and protect children because they are not responsible yet. People are responsible for their own actions and parents are responsible for a child's well being. If feeding children raw milk is assessed as an unnecessary risk, then that is child negligence if/when something happens to the kids. IMO, outbreaks of sickness from raw milk often seem isolated and it seems to be a low-risk behavior... I hesitate to support legislation limiting the rights of many because of the unfortunate accidents of a few.

As I said before: It's government's job to protect ignorant people... not stupid people.
There are already laws against stupid parenting. (child negligence)

Such as the enjoyment from pets, exercise from toys and games, etc.

Drinking raw milk? No benefits. It's a crazy woo belief that somehow raw milk (if you're going to drink milk, that is - many of them despise the stuff and don't think anyone should) is superior to pasteurized. There is no evidence of such. They just oppose any modern improvement in our diet out of principle.

The government has to protect us all - whether we are ignorant, stupid, or a colossal genius like yourself. The FDA, the CPSC, the SEC, the EPA, and more - all exist to protect us from different things.

It's always fun to encounter libertarians here.

It does have benefits but it also has risks too. Like any food item it can become easily tainted. The lack of pasteurization as a safe-guard does heighten risk.

The FDA commonly warns against eating raw or undercooked meats. Says so... right on the bottom of most menus. Do you think raw meat should be banned? What about sushi/sashimi? It's all assumed and calculated risks. Bacterial outbreaks in spinach alone have killed more people in recent years than raw milk. According to the FDA, between 1990 and 2004 bacteria-contaminated produce caused 639 disease outbreaks, poultry 541, beef 467, and seafood 984. Between 1994 and 2008 there were only 85 disease outbreaks associated with unpasteurized dairy products.

Also, I have never had raw milk (and likely will not). As I understand it, isn't raw milk whole? I prefer skim or 1% maximum - I don't find the concept of raw milk appealling, yuk :thumbsdown:. I don't mind government protections... they are great. I'm just opposed to writing policy based on an awfully small contingency of people who get sick. IMO, people should be made aware of the risks and allowed to make an informed decision like many other health related risks. Smoking, drinking, HFCS, raw meat & seafood... what makes Raw Milk so different that it needs to be Banned?

For instance, if that study corrected for known factors like rates of asthma and allergies being more common in urban kids vs. rural.

Bottom line though, is that "both reports warned that raw milk often harbors pathogens, and neither recommended consumption of raw milk as a preventative measure."

this crap don't get to choose where their milk comes from. Idiot parents feed this unpasteurized stuff to their kids, under some mistaken belief or another.

The children can't read the warning labels. Now, one of those children may die. Not good.

I think this case could fall under child negligence - no need for further laws and regulations.
The parents knew there were risks and proceeded with giving their children raw milk.

No different than a Mother feeding an infant honey or letting a little kid shoot a micro-uzi at a gun range.
Parents assume alot of risk for thier kids because the kids dont know any better.

How about, instead, we make it illegal to sell raw milk products, period?

There are enough wackos out there who do wacky things to their children. Punishing them after they manage to kill their children seems a bit late in the process to me.

Some laws that protect children are very good laws.

:eyes:

Every little incident Americans encounter does not need some piece of nanny legislation riding on it's coattails. There are a variety of foods that are not particularly safe to eat, especially for children. That doesn't mean we should ban them. There are tools already in place to provide a deterrent to these events.

Just let it get nice and moldy and the penicillium will kill all the E. Coli.

That is all.

Might as well be wishing for the moon while I am at it.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.