Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

  • dangermaus

    I don’t drink raw milk, and I certainly wouldn’t give it to kids, but I don’t think this is much of a “guide” for making decisions about raw milk safety… It’s more of pamphlet outlining why not to give it to your kids. A “guide” should give some sort of information about making an objective assessment of the likelihood of actually encountering contamination. This doesn’t do that, and it simply provides the judgement that it’s “too risky”, buying into the false dichotomy that food is “safe” or “unsafe” rather than the real situation, which is that all food has risks and benefits, some more obvious or immediate risks than others.

  • Doc Mudd

    But, dangermaus, what about the healthy/unhealthy dichotomy of ‘highly processed foods’ as you generally preach it.
    Softening your sermon on the merits of those products, too, are you?
    http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/03/fda-meeting-do-dyes-cause-hyperactivity/

  • L. L.

    I found the “guide” to be a useful one-pager on the issue. For more extensive information and analysis of risks/benefits, the reader can follow the link to http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com. There is a need for both approaches (short- and long-form) in health education on complex issues.

  • dangermaus

    Mudd,
    The energy with which you write your posts makes me think that you at least want to be someone who understands things, but you clearly don’t understand what I’m saying, or at least your post implies that you don’t.
    My argument is that the author is implying a flawed view of the safety of food – that he’s implying that food can be classified as “safe” or “not safe”. I’m saying is that no such dichotomy actually exists.
    As to your comparison to my supporting people avoiding highly-processed* foods, I think you’re assuming something that I don’t think I’ve implied. I don’t think food can be classified (not in an absolute way) into “processed” or “unprocessed”, either. Certainly, you can find easy examples that all but the most contrarian-types will agree with (chicken nuggets and twinkies, vs. an apple or a turnip, etc).
    In most cases (certainly not all) the processing that food intended for wide distribution undergoes reduces the “nutritional density” of the original ingredients. In addition to killing bacteria and stabilizing oils, the cooking, dehydrating, using additives etc. this processing breaks down the aromatics and nutrients that were in the original organism and/or extracts proteins and fiber from the food. I think food should be processed in a way that keeps the nutrients in the ingredients in tact, or even increases their bio-availability, like soaking corn in lye does (a process not to be confused with the more modern techniques of breaking corn down to extremely specific isolates).
    *I would think that you understood that I believe there is more to this than “Processed” or “Not Processed” because you used the adjective “highly”. Is it “processing” to pick a radish and wash it? Probably… There isn’t anywhere to draw an obvious line, between the two.

  • Doc Mudd

    Yeah, well I’m quite certain unpasteurized milk is unsafe relative to pasteurized. There is no false dichotomy at work there.
    If you strap your kids into carseats and insist they wear bike helmets and drill them to instinctively look both ways before crossing the street, then you cannot reasonably justify feeding them unpasteurized dairy products when good, safe pasteurized products are so abundant and affordable. No dichotomy there at all. Just sensible parenting.

  • dangermaus

    You’re not going to get any raw milk advocacy out of me…
    I’m saying that this is a choice people should make for themselves, based on what’s important to them.
    Bicycle helmets are a perfect example, actually – Wouldn’t simply not allowing the kid to have a bicycle at all be safe compared to riding a bike with a helmet? Shouldn’t parents, then, forbid their children from crossing the street at all?

  • Doc Mudd

    Yeah, I’m not convinced extreme precaution is always warranted. I mean, as a kid I didn’t wear any dopey bike helmet and I broke many a fall with my head – I assert that I wasn’t permanently damaged by that (of course there are those who disagree).
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AlrFOBmdVI
    Sensible precaution, now that’s different. Like not feeding your kids dangerous food just to assuage your own whacky notions. Poor little kids can’t choose their parents.

  • Kathy

    Yeah, consider your opinion noted. My preference is in knowing my farmer, his sanitary practices, his care of his animals and such. I much prefer to drink the raw milk from his cows rather than the watered down, pasteurized pus that is sold in the grocery stores.
    This is MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE and MY RIGHT TO CHOOSE for myself. Everyone should be allowed the FREEDOM to make this choice for themselves and their families.
    Kathy in Maryland

  • Doc Mudd

    Well have a care for the little kids, anyway. They can’t choose…they might have chosen more responsible, less self-obsessed orthorexic parents if they could.