I think you're really going beyond the entirely noble pursuit of raising awareness and totally overshooting deep into alarmist territory.
That is all.
I think you haven't been reading posts other than Rym and Scott's in this thread, which is why you think that. Or you just can't except that you're dong sohooting for something potentially incredibly life threatening, and are trying to shrug it off as "I'm healthy" and "whatever."
Seriously? That's what you're gonna do? Do you even read what's being posted?
Raw milk, from what I understand so far, is filled to the brim with shit that's bad for you, things that could make that glass of milk your last anything ever. And you're going to relate that to going outside?
Listen, we're the last people to be sensationalising and exaggerating danger. Hell, I was just actively promoting Beware Dangerism! on the podcast. Raw milk really and truly is just as dangerous as we are saying. The fact that you can't seem to accept or understand this is the reason this is such a huge problem. People are deciding to do a very dangerous thing because they do not really understand or believe just how truly dangerous it is.
So when you're having loads and loads of gay sex, do you go bareback? Or do you use condoms because the risk of contracting HIV is significant?
You make an excellent point with this line of questioning but you're asking the wrong person because I'm the first to admit I've had a lot of unsafe sex in the past and I'm honestly lucky to have skirted by unscathed.
People are deciding to do a very dangerous thing because they do not really understand or believe just how truly dangerous it is.
To wit, if there were evidence of a vast pedophile child kidnapping ring targeting playgrounds, it would be prudent to not allow your child to play unsupervised at one. Or if there were evidence that a particular slide design was likely to cause freak deadly accidents, it would be prudent to ban said design.
Dangerism is basically overestimating risk, which is almost as bad as underestimating risk.
You make an excellent point with this line of questioning but you're asking the wrong person because I'm the first to admit I've had a lot of unsafe sex in the past and I'm honestly lucky to have skirted by unscathed.
It's actually a pretty good comparison.
It's a comparison that we in the public health microbiology field use all the time.
And the risk really is just as great, and the consequences can be just as dire.
Talk to enough mothers who have lost children to foodborne illness, and you take a very different view of things.
Talk to enough mothers who have lost children to foodborne illness, and you take a very different view of things.
Wouldn't you agree then that your impression of the danger may be somewhat biased? I think anyone is wont to overstate something they're intimately familiar with or an authority on by sheer merit of it being their thing.
My point here has nothing to actually do with raw milk or the incredible danger involved. I'm just speaking in favor of not being a bunch of alarmists who prioritize danger above all else and disregard anything that is dangerous without considering whether it may be worthwhile despite itself.
Wouldn't you agree then that your impression of the danger may be somewhat biased?
My concern is biased. My impression of the danger is based on empirical evidence.
Basically, I care more than most people do, because of everyone I've spoken to. My statement of the actual danger is completely in line with the truth; I just yell about it a whole lot.
I'm just speaking in favor of not being a bunch of alarmists who prioritize danger above all else and disregard anything that is dangerous without considering whether it may be worthwhile despite itself.
And as I've said, I am genuinely not being an alarmist here.
1) Raw milk consumption is increasing in the United States. 2) Raw milk provides no significant health benefits over and above pasteurized milk. 3) Despite 2 being backed up by science, there is a widespread unfounded belief that raw milk is somehow "better" for you than pasteurized milk. 4) The marketing around raw milk (and the "natural foods" thing in general) actively downplays the risks and makes dubious claims as to the benefits of raw milk, which, as I mentioned in 2, are unsubstantiated. 5)The risks of raw milk consumption have the very real potential to extend beyond the individual consumer. 6) Consumers are presented with so much competing information - and lack the ability to interpret any of it - that they make an arbitrary decision based on personal recommendations. 7) Once a person believes something, they are incredibly disinclined to change that belief, particularly if some sort of authority figure is telling them about it.
This is part of a larger trend of people bucking legitimate scientific progress in favor of woo bullshit. Homeopathic "remedies" are a related topic. All of it persists because of rampant competing misinformation and the general unwillingness of humans to budge from a particular point of view.
So, no, I really don't think I'm being alarmist. I think the majority of the public don't understand the problem nor its implications, because they are inadequately educated and thus lack the ability to critically interpret the information presented to them.
I couldn't agree more with all that you've said, really. No one is more of a fake medicine antagonist than I and you're doing a great job of fighting against that in the best way you know how, I'm sure.
My points have never been to suggest that anyone should consume raw milk or that it's good, healthy, advisable or a bright idea (it's basically the opposite).
However, I think claiming that healthy people without compromised immune systems will be killed dead for sure without exception for even trying some raw milk is just as much confusing misinformation as saying raw milk will give you organic superpowers. The truth lies somewhere between.
However, I think claiming that healthy people without compromised immune systems will be killed dead for sure without exception for even trying some raw milk is just as much confusing misinformation as saying raw milk will give you organic superpowers. The truth lies somewhere between.
OK, I suppose that's a fair point. I have overstated the risks at times, largely in direct response to the amount of misinformation out there.
However, we're learning more and more that the concept of "infectious dose" is maybe not what we thought it once was. Microbial risk assessment is a rapidly evolving field, and I can tell you that based on all the information I've seen, there is a legitimate reason to be concerned.
Nobody could fault you for doing what it takes to counteract the ocean of misinformation that surrounds our tiny island of science; it's not a fair fight.
Hmm. I've pretty much given up on mainstream science journalism.
FTFA:
Cheese made with pasteurized milk can also present food safety hazards if it becomes contaminated after the pasteurization step — during production or aging, for example.
RAW MILK CHEESE HAS THE EXACT SAME PROBLEM YOU DIPSHITS! EXCEPT THAT THE MILK IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE CONTAMINATED FROM THE BEGINNING!
OMFG I hate people again.
60-day aging really does need to be revisited. Countless centuries of artificial selection have very likely resulted in some highly adapted pathogens. I should know; I've isolated bugs from 60+ day aged cheeses before.
EDIT: Also:
But the choice of 60 days as the necessary threshold was a fairly arbitrary one, according to Dennis J. D’Amico, senior research scientist of the Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese of the University of Vermont.
I met this guy. He was starting a brewing graduate program at UVM. Cool dude.
I will stand fast in my defense of raw milk cheeses until my dying breath due to a novel Vancomycin-Resistant Listeriosis borne in a pound of roquefort I chose to consume entirely by myself, but I also believe in the hard science that says that these cheeses need to be made as safe as possible before hitting the market. So, if raw cheeses have to be aged 120 days at least, so be it.
That said, I don't have to worry about these regulations; Roquefort ages a minimum of 150 days in cold caves before it goes to market, and it's the only raw cheese I eat (that could change, but I make a point of looking into the cheesemaking practices for each cheese I eat). Now, taleggio only ripens for 40 days, and it's a soft cheese. If you are eating raw taleggio-style cheeses, you may have some serious problems in your future. Especially because pasteurized taleggio is widely-available and not that different from the raw article.
I say go ahead and sell them, but put adequate warning labels on them. I'm all for allowing people to make stupid choices, as long as they are informed stupid choices.
I say go ahead and sell them, but put adequate warning labels on them. I'm all for allowing people to make stupid choices, as long as they are informed stupid choices.
I agree. However, an adequate warning label should probably have a skull and crossbones on it. Also, public health care money shouldn't be used to help self-inflicted illnesses if they do get sick.
However, an adequate warning label should probably have a skull and crossbones on it.
Depends on the cheese. Drinking a beer won't do the same liver damage that drinking a fifth of hard liquor will, in the same way that a hard or blue raw cheese aged 160 days won't pose the same risk as a soft-ripened raw Camembert aged 21 days. Still, I kind of see where you're coming from.
Also, public health care money shouldn't be used to help self-inflicted illnesses if they do get sick.
Good luck proving that with cheese. Cheese gets cut from the wheel for a sale. L. monocytogenes and E. coli can come from many, many food products. Tracing it back to a single wheel of cheese or some other food product is really, really difficult.
I say go ahead and sell them, but put adequate warning labels on them.
Actually, I attended a few lectures about product labeling. Lots of good studies about this.
So, consumers say they want to be fully informed on labels. Well, I saw a fully-informative label as part of this presentation. Consumers hated it. The more "user-friendly" label? Too big. Not enough room on the label for all the other required information. The condensed "need-to-know" label? Consumers didn't like it because they thought we were hiding things from them.
The actual amount of labeling that we would need to do is well past what consumers actually want to deal with on a product.
The condensed "need-to-know" label? Consumers didn't like it because they thought we were hiding things from them.
What about a label that provides a website link for further information? I think that has some good potential.
It won't work. That's contingent on the consumer visiting the site, and most raw food eaters probably won't believe in the FDA or a dairy's warnings about food that is ostensibly a magical panacea of natural goodness.
It won't work. That's contingent on the consumer visiting the site, and most raw food eaters probably won't believe in the FDA or a dairy's warnings about food that is ostensibly a magical panacea of natural goodness.
THAT'S BECAUSE THE FDA IS JUST A SHILL FOR BIG FARMER.
The actual amount of labeling that we would need to do is well past what stupid consumers actually want to deal with on a product.
I would be happy if the only discretionary labeling on any product was a small black on white text label for the brand name and a small square for the logo. The rest can be detailed product information.
The actual amount of labeling that we would need to do is well past whatstupidconsumers actually want to deal with on a product.
I would be happy if the only discretionary labeling on any product was a small black on white text label for the brand name and a small square for the logo. The rest can be detailed product information.
When prescribed and OTC medicine comes with print outs, I read every word. Heck I still read every word on the pamphlet that comes in hair dye and tampon boxes, even of brand I have used before, because information can and does change. That level of information for every OTC medication and dietary supplement would be nice.
I would be happy if the only discretionary labeling on any product was a small black on white text label for the brand name and a small square for the logo. The rest can be detailed product information.
No, you really don't. I didn't even want it. It was too much. It's not that the consumers are stupid; they want the information presented in an accessible form.
You shouldn't have to spend 10 minutes deciphering a label when you're trying to buy some goddamn milk.
Comments
That is all.
Raw milk, from what I understand so far, is filled to the brim with shit that's bad for you, things that could make that glass of milk your last anything ever. And you're going to relate that to going outside?
It's actually a pretty good comparison.
Dangerism is basically overestimating risk, which is almost as bad as underestimating risk.
And the risk really is just as great, and the consequences can be just as dire.
Talk to enough mothers who have lost children to foodborne illness, and you take a very different view of things.
My point here has nothing to actually do with raw milk or the incredible danger involved. I'm just speaking in favor of not being a bunch of alarmists who prioritize danger above all else and disregard anything that is dangerous without considering whether it may be worthwhile despite itself.
Basically, I care more than most people do, because of everyone I've spoken to. My statement of the actual danger is completely in line with the truth; I just yell about it a whole lot. And as I've said, I am genuinely not being an alarmist here.
1) Raw milk consumption is increasing in the United States.
2) Raw milk provides no significant health benefits over and above pasteurized milk.
3) Despite 2 being backed up by science, there is a widespread unfounded belief that raw milk is somehow "better" for you than pasteurized milk.
4) The marketing around raw milk (and the "natural foods" thing in general) actively downplays the risks and makes dubious claims as to the benefits of raw milk, which, as I mentioned in 2, are unsubstantiated.
5)The risks of raw milk consumption have the very real potential to extend beyond the individual consumer.
6) Consumers are presented with so much competing information - and lack the ability to interpret any of it - that they make an arbitrary decision based on personal recommendations.
7) Once a person believes something, they are incredibly disinclined to change that belief, particularly if some sort of authority figure is telling them about it.
This is part of a larger trend of people bucking legitimate scientific progress in favor of woo bullshit. Homeopathic "remedies" are a related topic. All of it persists because of rampant competing misinformation and the general unwillingness of humans to budge from a particular point of view.
So, no, I really don't think I'm being alarmist. I think the majority of the public don't understand the problem nor its implications, because they are inadequately educated and thus lack the ability to critically interpret the information presented to them.
My points have never been to suggest that anyone should consume raw milk or that it's good, healthy, advisable or a bright idea (it's basically the opposite).
However, I think claiming that healthy people without compromised immune systems will be killed dead for sure without exception for even trying some raw milk is just as much confusing misinformation as saying raw milk will give you organic superpowers. The truth lies somewhere between.
However, we're learning more and more that the concept of "infectious dose" is maybe not what we thought it once was. Microbial risk assessment is a rapidly evolving field, and I can tell you that based on all the information I've seen, there is a legitimate reason to be concerned.
OMFG I hate people again.
60-day aging really does need to be revisited. Countless centuries of artificial selection have very likely resulted in some highly adapted pathogens. I should know; I've isolated bugs from 60+ day aged cheeses before.
EDIT: Also: I met this guy. He was starting a brewing graduate program at UVM. Cool dude.
That said, I don't have to worry about these regulations; Roquefort ages a minimum of 150 days in cold caves before it goes to market, and it's the only raw cheese I eat (that could change, but I make a point of looking into the cheesemaking practices for each cheese I eat). Now, taleggio only ripens for 40 days, and it's a soft cheese. If you are eating raw taleggio-style cheeses, you may have some serious problems in your future. Especially because pasteurized taleggio is widely-available and not that different from the raw article.
So, consumers say they want to be fully informed on labels. Well, I saw a fully-informative label as part of this presentation. Consumers hated it. The more "user-friendly" label? Too big. Not enough room on the label for all the other required information. The condensed "need-to-know" label? Consumers didn't like it because they thought we were hiding things from them.
The actual amount of labeling that we would need to do is well past what consumers actually want to deal with on a product.
You shouldn't have to spend 10 minutes deciphering a label when you're trying to buy some goddamn milk.