Canadian raw milk merchant on trial

[Rolfe]

Pasteurised cheese definitely tastes different. It's obvious why. Do you remember the episode of Chef! where Lenny Henry was rushing round the (English) countryside trying to source unpasteurised Stilton for his Michelin-star menu! Getting crack cocaine would have been easier.

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Good think I never claimed to then. I said you ignored it. That can mean two things. Either I'm referring to maaaagggical psychic powers, or I'm referring to what you'd written. Guess which one was the case.

Your statement was false. If you'd like to not be taken to task over that, don't make statements like that. I have myself fallen into that error, stating that someone "ignores" something due to a particular element of a discussion not being in a particular post. I've stopped doing that. Why? We can't each write War and Peace in a single post. Language wise, a "what about this consideration" is IMO a far more useful device in keeping the discussion open, and vital.

Yes that's right. Perhaps the milk in China that can kill you should be illegal.

Legality seems to be the idiot's game being played here, by the Canadian government. That's the problem. Attempting to pretend that food being legal or illegal as the core consideration. Being safely consummable is the core consideration. Related to that, risks and odds one is willing to accept in consuming a product is germane.

See also smoking.

Legal.

Not the safest thing in the world, but a choice to consume anyway. If the warnings and cautions on the consumption of raw milk aren't well enough presented, I think you'd be in a great position to demand or suggest that the information for intelligent risk management be required under law, as it is with cigarettes. We would agree on that completely.

DR

 

[luchog]

Legality and wisdom in usage are two different issues at hand. There is legal milk you can buy in China that may kill you. There were legal burgers that passed the ecoli bacteria to some people, and it killed them. There are legal peanut butter sandwiches that may cause death if you are allergic to it.

Yes that's right. Perhaps the milk in China that can kill you should be illegal.

I notice you didn't bother to comment on the peanuts.

Raw milk has caused just over 1000 illnesses, and 2 deaths in 7 years.

Peanuts have caused well over 10000 reactions and 1000 hospitalizations, and close to 100 deaths every year; among those allergic to them. That's over 300 times as many deaths from peanuts as from raw milk.

It's obvious that anyone caught selling peanuts should be prosecuted far more strongly than sellers of raw milk, for purveying such a horrifically dangerous product.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I notice you didn't bother to comment on the peanuts.

Raw milk has caused just over 1000 illnesses, and 2 deaths in 7 years.

Peanuts have caused well over 10000 reactions and 1000 hospitalizations, and close to 100 deaths every year; among those allergic to them. That's over 300 times as many deaths from peanuts as from raw milk.

It's obvious that anyone caught selling peanuts should be prosecuted far more strongly than sellers of raw milk, for purveying such a horrifically dangerous product.

Or you could say that the regulations concerning the requirement for milk to be pasteurized have saved 100s of deaths and 10000s of hospitalizations and that there appears to be a good reason to have similar regulations in place for peanuts.

But, of course, you won't.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

There's a pretty huge difference between deaths due to an allergy and deaths due to stupidity and lies.

 

[shawmutt]

@ techno extreme: your woo of fear is noted. I will point out to you that for centuries, human beings consumed raw milk and, if you look around you, seem to have not died out.

I really don't have an opinion on the whole raw milk issue, but I do have an opinion on the "but we've been doing it for centuries!" rationalization. Average life expectancy a 100 years ago was a paltry 47 years.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I notice you didn't bother to comment on the peanuts.

Raw milk has caused just over 1000 illnesses, and 2 deaths in 7 years.

Peanuts have caused well over 10000 reactions and 1000 hospitalizations, and close to 100 deaths every year; among those allergic to them. That's over 300 times as many deaths from peanuts as from raw milk.

It's obvious that anyone caught selling peanuts should be prosecuted far more strongly than sellers of raw milk, for purveying such a horrifically dangerous product.

I agree with the Viridian Simian. Also, I think more restrictions on nuts are arguable, but I don't have the data for it. I know lots of precautions are taken and that everywhere peanuts are prepared have prominent warning signs. I remember a kerfluffle awhile ago when schools served allergic kids food with peanuts and almost killed them. I think that got peanuts out of that school if not all Massachusetts schools.

I could see something like that with raw milk, warnings a la cigarettes. Honestly though I don't see why we'd open up a can of worms when we've got that health threat contained and only a few kooks are throwing themselves against the barracades over it.

 

[Glite]

Has Canada also outlawed tobacco and alcohol? They're probably a much bigger burden to the NHS than raw milk.

Lovely point, especially considering that in parts of canada the gub-ment has a monopoly on alcohol sales (Ontario's LCBO stores) and make a crap load of money off tobacco sales.

It makes them look like they care, when, the most likely story is that they were having problems taxing it. (jerks)

 

[Darth Rotor]

I really don't have an opinion on the whole raw milk issue, but I do have an opinion on the "but we've been doing it for centuries!" rationalization. Average life expectancy a 100 years ago was a paltry 47 years.

So what?

Given how high child mortality was in those days, and death by childbirth, and the ease of dying from a variety of diseases, your statement is irrelevant to the issue of milk.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

So what?

Given how high child mortality was in those days, and death by childbirth, and the ease of dying from a variety of diseases, your statement is irrelevant to the issue of milk.

DR

So if you don't care about deaths and sicknesses from milk, what do you say about the spinach outbreak, the tomato/chili outbreak, the peanut butter outbreak and so on.

Is the effort spent on these issues, which are not any worse than the milk issue, over blown or not?

I can't find any information about any deaths from the tomato/chili outbreak last summer. Was it all just a big waste of time or not?

 

[Rolfe]

The issue is that in the past there was a huge morbidity and mortality associated with milk consumption, mainly as a result of tuberculosis. Pasteurisation allowed that to be brought under control.

Now, the relevant diseases are much rarer, in part due to their having been eradicated from the dairy herd (talking especially about tuberculosis and brucellosis here). Is there really a case for relaxing the restrictions on unpasteurised milk now? Maybe, but is it sensible to risk a return to the previous situation and have to start all over again? Personally, I'm sceptical that there's much if any taste difference attributable to pasteurisation per se, and speculate that a campaign for pasteurised milk whic his not processed in any other way might be more rational and have an easier ride of it.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

Rolfe you have said that there is not much difference in taste between pasteurised and unpasteurised milk, and you have explained why. You have also agreed that unpasteurised cheese does taste different and you have said it is obvious why that is. I am missing something because if the difference does not lie in the milk I do not know where it lies. Can you explain, please?

 

[Rolfe]

Milk is milk. When drunk fresh, it's neither here nor there whether the bacteria in it are viable or not. However, there is one very obvious difference. While raw milk will "turn" very quickly because the live bacteria in it will multiply, pasteurised milk keeps much better as most of the bacteria are inactivated.

Cheese is made from fermented milk. The fermantation characteristics vary markedly depending on whether or not the milk has viable bacteria in it.

Rolfe.

 

[Fiona]

Thank you

 

[luchog]

Or you could say that the regulations concerning the requirement for milk to be pasteurized have saved 100s of deaths and 10000s of hospitalizations and that there appears to be a good reason to have similar regulations in place for peanuts.

But, of course, you won't.

No, because I don't have solid data either way. Do you? If so, put up or shut up.

No one is claiming that pasteurizing milk doesn't reduce the prevalence of certain foodborne infections (incidentally, it only prevents such while stored for sale, improper storage after opening is responsible for a large number of dairy-based food-borne pathogen illnesses every year). However, that is not the same as demanding all non-pasteurized dairy be legally prohibited and punishable by draconian files and jail terms.

Not to mention the fact it's hypocritical for a government who makes money off of alcohol monopolies and tobacco taxes to do so; when both those substances have a much greater proven potential for harm than raw milk.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

No, because I don't have solid data either way. Do you? If so, put up or shut up.

For once I don't need "solid data". All this was hashed out in the early part of the 20th Century. And the decision then was, based on medical evidence, that enforced pasteurization of milk was of benefit to society. Either you accept that history or you have to believe that there is a vast organization of milk pasteurization equipment manufactures that was able to scam the medical organizations and legislators of the time.

No one is claiming that pasteurizing milk doesn't reduce the prevalence of certain foodborne infections (incidentally, it only prevents such while stored for sale, improper storage after opening is responsible for a large number of dairy-based food-borne pathogen illnesses every year). However, that is not the same as demanding all non-pasteurized dairy be legally prohibited and punishable by draconian files and jail terms.

The certain foodborne (sic) diseases include some of the most deadly and communicable known to man. Enforced pasteurization has been part of the enormous reduction of their outbreak, transmission and human death and suffering.

As for as the "improper storage" claim is concerned, where is your data?

Not to mention the fact it's hypocritical for a government who makes money off of alcohol monopolies and tobacco taxes to do so; when both those substances have a much greater proven potential for harm than raw milk.

So you say? Governments are hypocritical? No. In reality they have to balance many interests and conflicting requirements in order to govern in the interests of society.

 

[porch]

I'm in Nova Scotia, and I can freely find raw milk cheese openly advertised as such. Not as readily available as in Quebec, mind you. Do the laws not apply to cheese, or is it just unenforced?

One of Canada's greatest cultural assets is the sovereign, French-speaking nation within our borders. The rest of Canada may cave, but Quebec will never, ever give in to the feds. Anyone remember the story of the cheesmaker who dropped an 800 kg wheel of cheddar to the bottom of the Baie de Ha! Ha! to age? When the federal meddlers came sniffing about, suggesting that the bottom of a lake may be less than hygenic, the cheese suddenly went missing. Only the naive can think it disappeared to anywhere besides the black market.

Prohibition is futile. Try to stamp out questionable cheeses, and they'll just move underground. Before you know it, The Rock Machine will be fighting a turf war with the Hell's Angels over the black market in black, furry, raw goat cheese. Buy any cheese necessary! Vive le Québec libre! Vive le Canada français! Et vive la France! The only way you'll take my fromage au lait cru is to pry it out of my cold, dead colon!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm in Nova Scotia, and I can freely find raw milk cheese openly advertised as such. Not as readily available as in Quebec, mind you. Do the laws not apply to cheese, or is it just unenforced?

Cheese is regulated by its own laws in general. Raw Milk cheeses need to be aged over a certain time(around 300 days I think) to be legal to import to the US. The same would apply to shipping cheese between states.

Now inside a state it can be legal or illegal for raw milk to be sold, and cheese laws can vary as well.

I would like to see the raw milk proponents here advocate a general way that contaminated and potentially contaminated food should be treated. Look at all the harmless peanut butter that is getting classed with the contaminated.

 

[Rolfe]

Cheese, as I remarked, is a totally different issue. At least there is an obvious benefit to the use of non-pasteurised milk there, to inform the argument.

Rolfe.

 

[luchog]

For once I don't need "solid data". All this was hashed out in the early part of the 20th Century. And the decision then was, based on medical evidence, that enforced pasteurization of milk was of benefit to society. Either you accept that history or you have to believe that there is a vast organization of milk pasteurization equipment manufactures that was able to scam the medical organizations and legislators of the time.

In other words, you really don't know anything substantial about it.

In the "early part of the 20th Century", dairy farmers did not have the health standards requirement to meet that they do no; nor did they have the level of veterinary care or antibiotic drugs that are currently available. Sanitation and handling standards and technology are also dramatically different and far advanced from what they were at the beginning of the previous century.

So, again, given that, how necessary is pasteurization, and how justified are such draconian laws against knowingly purchasing unpasteurized milk?

The certain foodborne (sic) diseases include some of the most deadly and communicable known to man. Enforced pasteurization has been part of the enormous reduction of their outbreak, transmission and human death and suffering.

Improved veterinary medicine and sanitation have been at least as important, if not more so. How much of an issue are these diseases now? Enough to justify such a dramatic crackdown on a small community dairy offering something that was not demonstrated to be a major health hazard, to people who clearly knew exactly what they were buying?

As for as the "improper storage" claim is concerned, where is your data?

I'll show you mine as soon as you show me yours, since you're the one making the claim that such overzealous enforcement methods are necessary.