Government will provide “safety”??

Pulled from a discussion over weeks on the Daily Bell web site:

Trutherator:

The best place to regulate food safety is the free market.

He:

Well, the free market did control food safety a hundred or so years ago, which is why so many people died from foodborne illness outbreaks… Most of those illnesses were from raw milk, as a matter of fact.

Trutherator:

One thing, Where did you get your numbers for this dubious claim? In other words, how do you know? Did they teach you that in the government-owned, government-operated, government indoctrination centers (euphemistically called “schools”)? In the same history classes that taught you that Abraham Lincoln once proposed making slavery a permanent institution by amendment to the Constitution, because it would help “preserve the Union” by keeping the slave states from seceding?

But what you have now with “food safety control” are heavy-handed government agencies ruled by the same operators that run the government-connected rent-seeking corporation executives. Get the contradiction, and get it good: the control freaks demand control of food safety, to protect other people, whether they like it or not. So they get a control freak agency run by the Big Food Industry executives. They get wolves from the local wolf-pack to protect us from the local wolf-pack!

Great idea! Policemen in the pay of Al Capone will protect you from Capone’s trigger men!

Stalin will protect you from abuses by secret police!

Hugo Chavez will protect the poor from abuses by the rich, even if he has to put in his own rich friends to do it!

Obama will protect us from Wall Street by appointing Wall Street bankers to control banking safety!

Advertisements

Tags: ,

2 Responses to “Government will provide “safety”??”

  1. rawmilkmike Says:

    !00 years ago pasteurization was already mandatory in some cities and these aren’t foodborne illnesses you’re talking about.

    Our government keeps telling us fresh milk is unsafe but according to these 2 US government studies raw milk actually has a negative risk factor.

    1. Raw Milk Consumption among Patients with Non–Outbreak-related Enteric Infections, Minnesota, USA, 2001–2010 by Trisha J. Robinson, Joni M. Scheftel, and Kirk E. Smith

    An estimated 17.3% of raw milk consumers in Minnesota may have acquired an illness caused by 1 of these enteric pathogens during the 10-year study period. (That’s 1.7% per year.) or (1 in 59)

    2. About 48 million people (That’s 15% per year or 1 in 6 Americans) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die each year from foodborne diseases, according to new estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    When you look at these 2 studies you can see that the US Center for Disease Control has inadvertently demonstrated that people who don’t drink raw milk are 9 times more likely to contract a so called foodborne illness. In other words raw milk prevents 1.3 million cases of foodborne disease and 90 deaths every year in the US.

    Here’s another non sequitur: Christopher Gardner, a researcher at Stanford University, said he wanted to find out if there really was any effect on lactose intolerance from drinking raw milk. When he found out that most of his over 500 lactose intolerant volunteers actually had no trouble digesting lactose(instead of admitting that he had just proven that lactose intolerance has nothing to do with lactose), he decided instead to do a study on 16 lactose malabsorbers.

    What’s so absurd about this is that lactose malabsorption is not really a problem in this country while lactose intolerance most certainly is. Most lactose malabsorbers are not even mildly lactose intolerant. They claim to have proven us wrong when in fact they have actually proven us right.

    People that switch to raw milk and who drink a couple of glasses a day, know it has health benefits in a matter weeks and know it is safe in a matter of months.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: