Jogeephus":1x9j363p said:
The way I see it there should be a tiered set of regulatory standards. One set for those people or companies who are faceless to the public and package their products to be sold across the state or country and another set for those in the local community. I don't think the federal or the state governments should have any say so on what we do within our own communities and if you have a cow that you slaughter on your farm then you should be allowed to sell portions or all of it to your friends and neighbors without any interference from the government.
Afterall, it is my choice and no one is forcing me to buy meat or whatever from you. And if I know you and trust that you are doing things correctly then why not allow me this simple freedom?
Personally, I think the food industry has done a great job keeping things safe but I also feel this has limited the food selections we have available and I think it has hurt the local economy.
I probably agree with 99% of what you post and I agree with most of what you posted above. I'm not educated enough in the food industry to pretend to solve all their problems, but I have a problem just opening up un pasteurized milk for sale willy nilly with the major consumers being children. Maybe I shouldn't feel this way, and parents should have the right to choose what's best for their kids. I feel that way in so many other areas, it should apply here as well. But I hate all the miss information.
More generally, the issue with safety is this, there is no sterile milk. It doesn't exist, it can't exist. The clean milk just has numbers below levels deemed to be pathogenic. Pasteurization does not make milk sterile. It just lowers the numbers further, by short term heating then quick cooling. It creates a product that will last on the shelf longer and is overall safer- even earlier in cases of severe contamination.
Those of you drinking whole milk, I imagine it was fresh correct? It didn't sit on the shelf for days and give bacteria time to replicate? Milk is a great medium for bactrial growth. It is in fact a medium used by labs to purposefully grow some bacteria. The issue with milk is getting it to the public. If everyone had a cow, it is less of a problem. You then don't have an issue of storage, transport. But that is not our situation. Plus you add the amount of milk that gets mixed together in large dairies. Potential for harm shoots up dramatically.
Some general recommendations should be made if fresh milk is to be sold. (different than laws, but gives people standards to educate themselves with). A very short expiration point should be expected, leading to the understanding that frequent purchases would be necessary. Inspections of farms and milk should have a much higher rating before considering purchase,and the lab values should be readily available. A release form stating the potential risks being taken should be signed to protect both parties, informed purchasing. Including the statement that milk contaminated with listeria, tuberculosis or ecoli can be deadly to children.
Arkansas, there is no way pasteurization has a higher risk. As stated, it does not make milk completely sterile. However, if it had not been performed, the number of pathogenic bacteria would have been substantially higher. If you want to compare apples to apples, compare food born illness rates prior to pasteurization to post. Even prior to medern periods, there was a tremendous difference. Research tuberculosis in England and the number of deaths due to contaminated unpasteurized milk.
You can't get milk to the masses without it.
There are tons of other products the process is used in as well. Not sure why they aren't being challenged as well?