USDA Gestapo Confiscates Raw Milk

[scottm]

+1 F'ing one Madmick. On all points.

 

[JauntyAngle]

Gestapo- Secret police of a regime that started the greatest conflict in the history of humanity and which murdered approximately 7,000,000 Jews, involved in supporting regime and maintaining grip on power

USDA- Department of the US Federal government responsible for supporting the farming sector and regulating farming and farming products, bureacratic, well-meaning but sometimes gets a bit carried away

Nice comparison.

 

[immovablestone]

I'm 100% for individual choice, but not when potentially ignorant choices will contribute to harming me. I think people should be able to drink raw milk if they want, but not until I don't have to pay for their willingly embraced risks.

My consumption of raw, grass fed milk will not harm you. It has a very minute potential to increase your insurance premiums by a few cents if, as a result of drinking it, a huge number of people need a shit-ton of medical care. There are bigger fish to fry on that front, good sir.

The only real issue with it now behind anything is a commercial concern for the larger dairy producers.

 

[uzbekistanian]

USDA will never acknowledge the superiority of products that come from smaller farms that do their farming in a way that's sustainable and closer to nature.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Gestapo- Secret police of a regime that started the greatest conflict in the history of humanity and which murdered approximately 7,000,000 Jews, involved in supporting regime and maintaining grip on power

USDA- Department of the US Federal government responsible for supporting the farming sector and regulating farming and farming products, bureacratic, well-meaning but sometimes gets a bit carried away

Nice comparison.

Thank you. The use of police presence as intimidation and suppression of sedition and then basically stealing paid-for milk from out the hands of customers and essentially from their kids' mouths, makes the analogy worthwhile.

 

[Long Dark Blues]

My consumption of raw, grass fed milk will not harm you. It has a very minute potential to increase your insurance premiums by a few cents if, as a result of drinking it, a huge number of people need a shit-ton of medical care. There are bigger fish to fry on that front, good sir.

The only real issue with it now behind anything is a commercial concern for the larger dairy producers.

Truth.

 

[Madmick]

My consumption of raw, grass fed milk will not harm you. It has a very minute potential to increase your insurance premiums by a few cents if, as a result of drinking it, a huge number of people need a shit-ton of medical care. There are bigger fish to fry on that front, good sir.

The only real issue with it now behind anything is a commercial concern for the larger dairy producers.

I find it odd that you've made out the USDA to be some sort of gestapo consort to the larger dairy producers out there when it has in fact been them who have reported the growing shift towards larger dairy farms. This information has trickled down and somehow reached you via someone who irrationally decided to hate the USDA. The Gestapo didn't share information with the public. And please keep in mind: the USDA and the FDA are not synonymous. I do not trust the latter; I trust the former:
Report: third of dairy farms gone since 2001 Agri-View: Dairy News

This sort of shift towards larger producers is unique to the farming sector; it's a problem in every major market in the USA and globally. The truth is that the USDA isn't deliberately trying to shit on the little guy; they're just trying to maintain a certain safety standard, and this standard (that requires more testing) will always favor producers of a larger scale of economy: testing 100,000 gallons of milk for microbes isn't going to cost much more than 1000 gallons of milk. It's not the USDA that's the enemy; it's the American consumer. He/she always chooses the cheaper milk. It's the reason Wal-Mart is taking over the world.

And your insistence that my premium being raised "only a few cents" is an unjustifiable argument; so a few cents here for the raw milk people, a few cents here for the unrefrigerated egg people, a few cents here for the raw meat eaters, a few cents here for the non-organic pesticide crazies, a few cents here for the electric scooter fatties, a few cents here for workman's comp to the obese blue-collar state workers needing knee surgery to "get back to work"...I could go on forever. It adds up. Any cost to me is unacceptable to me.

 

[immovablestone]

And your insistence that my premium being raised "only a few cents" is an unjustifiable argument; so a few cents here for the raw milk people, a few cents here for the unrefrigerated egg people, a few cents here for the raw meat eaters, a few cents here for the non-organic pesticide crazies, a few cents here for the electric scooter fatties, a few cents here for workman's comp to the obese blue-collar state workers needing knee surgery to "get back to work"...I could go on forever. It adds up. Any cost to me is unacceptable to me.

I agree with you in principle regarding unnecessary treatments and such, but raw milk consumption (which is the issue here) is not in any way even close to the same category as unnecessary surgeries, medications, malpractice, and the like.

Hell, there's no greater health risk at all over normal milk if your local producers adhere to the standards they need to follow in order to get their licenses to sell raw...

 

[Madmick]

I agree with you in principle regarding unnecessary treatments and such, but raw milk consumption (which is the issue here) is not in any way even close to the same category as unnecessary surgeries, medications, malpractice, and the like.

Agreed, but irrelevant to my point.

Hell, there's no greater health risk at all over normal milk if your local producers adhere to the standards they need to follow in order to get their licenses to sell raw...

This simply isn't true; I just posted a source with a wealth of information proving why. You can test for most harmful bacteria, but you can never test perfectly: because bacteria like E. Coli are usually contained in microscopic chunks of manure floating inside of milk there is no possible way to test a sample and still know with complete confidence that there isn't contamination in the whole; pasteurization kills everything. It's disgusting to think of things like that, but it's the reality. These types of harmful bacteria are inherent to animals; outbreaks of vegetables are caused by contamination by other sources (usually the water supply).

Here's an excellent article on this whole debate:
Local News | Is raw, unpasteurized milk safe? | Seattle Times Newspaper
Just as there has been the trend of smaller dairy farms closing the past 9 years while 500+ cow dairy farms have increased, so too have raw milk producers soared. To me, this just demonstrates how ineffective raw milk production is in actually positively affecting the market; really, it just increases the profit margin for those who enter it. Ultimately, they're just going to lose the battle. That does constern me because I constantly worry about our shrinking middle class, but I'll get over it. Progress is progress, and I have no problem paying less for a product of equal nutritional value and greater safety. I'm not gonna cry like a hipster because the overwhelming majority of people are unwilling to pay a 500% markup to preserve a disappearing industry.

I like where your heart is at, but I think you should consider re-evaluating your position on this matter. On the one hand you have the disciples of the great Louis Pasteur who maintain a complicated argument that considers all the factors of production and the discoveries of our microbiological awareness; on the other you have guys like this Jeff Brown, who offer, "God designed raw milk; man messed with it...You draw your own conclusions," and, "Everything God designed is good for you."

I'll keep that in mind the next time I come across an Amanita Phalloides in a meadow.

 

[JauntyAngle]

Thank you. The use of police presence as intimidation and suppression of sedition and then basically stealing paid-for milk from out the hands of customers and essentially from their kids' mouths, makes the analogy worthwhile.

It's a horrible and offensive analogy.

If you buy something illegal (or forbidden under a statuatory authority), it will be confiscated, quite possibly by the police. The fact that it is paid for and taken out of the hands of customers is irrelevant. It's illegal. The point that it is destined to be drunk by kids is irrelevant. You don't have legal right to the results of the purchase. (Try running ' use of police presence as intimidation and suppression of sedition and then basically stealing paid-for heroin from out the hands of customers' for a rather extreme illustration of why the fact of purchase is irrelevant.)

Even if it was a highly contentious law, the fact is that somewhat heavyhanded enforcement of a prohibition is nothing like a mass murdering secret police that props up the most evil regime in history. As Madmick's posts show, there is actually a rather strong justification for the restriction. So it actually becomes somewhat heavy-handed enforcement of a justified law.

 

[immovablestone]

I like where your heart is at, but I think you should consider re-evaluating your position on this matter.

Not likely, I've done my research (I've actually read more con than pro material on the subject) and made my decisions based on many factors. My local producer (there is only one, to whom I've spoken directly, in person) I can trust regarding the sanitary concerns, and the risks of a few floating e-coli cells, in my judgment, pose me no greater threat than any of the other things I do with my life in the way of training and recreation.

Incidentally, I think pasteurization is the lesser of the dairy product evils as I see it. IMHO, homogenization and the diet/medication-hormone-cocktail of your typical big-ag dairy cows are worse. I would drink grass fed pasteurized milk (though I'd would prefer it to be yogurt at that point) over raw milk fed a typical feed-lot cow diet any day...

 

[Long Dark Blues]

Now they are attacking the consumers. This is an article to go with the video in my OP, focusing on the people who's house it was in the video where the drop-point delivery was made:

Helpful raw-milk-drinking mom threatened with prosecution | Grist

 

[Long Dark Blues]

It's a horrible and offensive analogy.

If you buy something illegal (or forbidden under a statuatory authority), it will be confiscated, quite possibly by the police. The fact that it is paid for and taken out of the hands of customers is irrelevant. It's illegal. The point that it is destined to be drunk by kids is irrelevant. You don't have legal right to the results of the purchase. (Try running ' use of police presence as intimidation and suppression of sedition and then basically stealing paid-for heroin from out the hands of customers' for a rather extreme illustration of why the fact of purchase is irrelevant.)

Even if it was a highly contentious law, the fact is that somewhat heavyhanded enforcement of a prohibition is nothing like a mass murdering secret police that props up the most evil regime in history. As Madmick's posts show, there is actually a rather strong justification for the restriction. So it actually becomes somewhat heavy-handed enforcement of a justified law.

Raw milk is NOT illegal in Minnesota. For the homeowners and their neighbors in the article I posted above, it is a loss of freedoms. First it's their milk, what's next?