A universal rating system for consumer goods would be nice. Like a movie rating system but for food, beverages, and OTC drugs.
This would be a pain in the ass to implement, but we're already seeing something similar in NYC with the Health Department giving a letter/color code for restaurants. Blue A, Green B, Yellow C. This gives the consumer a quick reference for easy informed decision making. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's better then expecting the average customer to Google a restaurant's Health Code violations every time they go out to eat.
A universal rating system for consumer goods would be nice. Like a movie rating system but for food, beverages, and OTC drugs.
This would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but we're already seeing something similar in NYC with the Health Department giving a letter/color code for restaurants. Green A, Yellow B, Red C. (I think.) This gives the comsumer a quick reference for easy informed decision making. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's better then expecting the average customer to Google a restaurant's Health Code violations every time they go out to eat.
That's not a bad idea.
Food Safety Rating for a banana: big green letter A Food Safety Rating on a bottle of raw milk: F with skull and crossbones.
A universal rating system for consumer goods would be nice. Like a movie rating system but for food, beverages, and OTC drugs.
This would be a pain in the ass to impliment, but we're already seeing something similar in NYC with the Health Department giving a letter/color code for restaurants. Green A, Yellow B, Red C. (I think.) This gives the comsumer a quick reference for easy informed decision making. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's better then expecting the average customer to Google a restaurant's Health Code violations every time they go out to eat.
What criteria would you use for ranking? "Safety?" That won't work. Nutritional value? Price Chopper uses the NuVal labeling system to provide guidance.
What criteria would you use for ranking? "Safety?" That won't work. Nutritional value? Price Chopper uses the NuVal labeling system to provide guidance.
Nutrition value, rate of potential side affects, rate of addiction, fat content, cholesterol, vitamins, know carcinogens,,, etc.
Price Chopper is off to a good start, but they're only looking at food stuff. I have no idea how they come up with that number and I don't know what that number mean. Is a 28 better then a 30 or is lower better? How bad is a 15? How good is a 50? No clue.
It's like movies. Not all R movies are rated R for the same reason. Some have Nudity, some have Violence and Nudity, and some have are the mother fucking Aristocrats. It would give consumers a reason to stop and think before they buy a product. It wouldn't stop people from buying a product, but it would give them reason flip the box around and read the info on the back. This way they're making a decision for themselves. Same way a parent would read a review of a movie that's rated PG-13 before they send their 10 year old to a see it. Some PG-13 movies are OK for a 10yo, but the parents are making that choice thanks to the rating instead of shrugging off the decision.
Food Safety Rating for a banana: big green letter A Food Safety Rating on a bottle of raw milk: F with skull and crossbones.
OK, something like 80% of raw poultry is contaminated with either Salmonella or Campylobacter. How would you rate that? What does the rating mean?
We can give you information like: "On average, cold-smoked salmon has a 7% association with Listeria monocytogenes contamination." What does that mean? Is that an A? B? C? F? What does that mean for the consumer? Does that mean that eating 14 servings of cold-smoked salmon will give you listeriosis?
The entire problem is that consumers don't know how to parse the factual information we give them right now. A user-friendly "ranking system" would only serve to further obfuscate the information that consumers claim they want.
Price Chopper is off to a good start, but they're only looking at food stuff. I have no idea how they come up with that number and I don't know what that number mean. Is a 28 better then a 30 or is lower better? How bad is a 15? How good is a 50? No clue.
So, OK, NuVal is already complicated and obfuscated. The concept of figuring out which food is "better" or "more nutritious" is heavily nuanced. Now you want to add these items:
rate of potential side affects, rate of addiction, fat content, cholesterol, vitamins, know carcinogens
A whole bunch of other information where you have to ask the same questions: "How did they arrive at these numbers?"
Then you want to add, say, a microbial risk assessment to that, which is an entire field with more nuances than we can imagine.
Then, condense it all to A, B, C, D, and F.
The reason that restaurant grading works is that all restaurants in NYC are subject to the exact same guidelines, and there is very strict control over the items being assessed. They're also only looking for cleanliness and procedures; they don't assess the safety of the food in the same way that I do.
Assessing the food supply overall is far more complex than assessing New York City restaurants. Different foods have radically different regulations based on the reality of those food items.
You don't have to give them all the math. You can just say "Warning: products made with raw milk carry a higher risk of contamination by X organism and Y organism, which can cause A, B, C illness."
It's like a pack of cigarettes doesn't give the statistical attributable risk of lung cancer, but simply says "Warning: smoking this shit can lead to cancer." You want the full details, you can go do more research. At least with a minimal warning, you have been put on notice that there is a heightened health risk. The burden for more details is shifted to the consumer once they have been warned.
You can just say "Warning: products made with raw milk carry a higher risk of contamination by X organism and Y organism, which can cause A, B, C illness."
Right. They already do that. And the knowledge of what they cause is changing all the time. Read the label on a package of raw meat some time; it includes all relevant safe food handling information. The problem is:
Hasn't more consumer awareness generally been shown not change anything though?
Yeah, pretty much. We've gotten far better about informing people over the years, and the problems of consumer ignorance are getting worse. The only thing we've found that actually works is intensive, focus-group style education.
Or maybe people understand the risks and choose to disregard them.
No, that's also not the case. I've seen focus-group studies educating consumers about the facts regarding the safety of particular food items, and they overwhelmingly change their minds. The proportion of consumers who make intelligent and adequately informed decisions really isn't that high.
Similarly, if you spend 15 minutes explaining food irradiation to consumers, 90% become favorably disposed to it. You only get about 50% starting off.
Seriously. We just have to educate people. Consumers want to know, but they don't want to have to figure it out when they're in the grocery store on a time budget. I think we can do that.
Putting labels on products isn't going to accomplish anything - there's no practical way to impose a level of education/information on people that will have any discernible effect.
Better schooling is simultaneously the solution that all advocates cry out for and the least likely to come out.
So? The fact remains that there is a threshold at which no increased measures can make a consumer safer if the consumer can't or won't take advantage of them. All the labels in the world won't do a damn bit of good if no one reads them. Just because we haven't laid out a plan to make it happen doesn't make it not so.
Jumping in here a bit late, but out of curiosity (and sorry if I missed it earlier), just what chemical changes take place in milk during the pasteurization process? Presumably there's more going on than just killing off all the nasty germs in the milk if people claim that raw milk and raw milk cheese tastes different and somehow better than pasteurized (unless this is just their mind telling them that). It's kind of a shame that the cheese making process apparently doesn't do anything (or enough) to get rid of the harmful microbes in raw milk cheese, otherwise I'd probably be willing to try some of these raw milk cheeses I hear people raving about.
(unless this is just their mind telling them that)
From what I've read, this is probably it.
There is some evidence that pasteurization reduces some of the B-vitamin content in raw milk. It also inhibits the activity of certain enzymes. However, pasteurization doesn't really significantly affect the nutritional value of milk. Raw milk is already not a great source of B vitamins, and the enzymes in the milk either have little human utility or have other sources.
The only real argument I could see in favor of raw milk is that it is a natural probiotic. Most raw milk has a pretty high native population of various lactic acid bacteria. These bacteria aid in digestion. However, yogurt, buttermilk, kefir, and other fermented products made with pasteurized milk are better sources of probiotics.
Jumping in here a bit late
It's never too late to discuss a topic. Particularly if I'm interested in it. I'll talk to you forever.
Good to know that odds are I'm not missing anything regarding flavor concerning raw milk vs. pasteurized milk. Not that I was seriously considering going "raw" (except perhaps to try a bit of raw milk cheese to see what the big deal was), but it looks like I don't even have a reason to try "raw" cheese as pasteurization shouldn't make any difference in the flavor anyway, as you said.
it looks like I don't even have a reason to try "raw" cheese as pasteurization shouldn't make any difference in the flavor anyway, as you said.
Know that some of the best cheeses on earth are raw cheeses due to EU Protected Origin rules or French AOC rulings. Roquefort is raw, and a life without a bit of roquefort is a life unlived in my book. Although, Pete will still harp on the rawness of it (with good reason), and the flavor comes more from how they harvest the lamb's milk and prepare the cheese than anything else. It's just the nature of the AOC that it must be raw to be roquefort.
That's the fourth post in this thread I've brought up Roquefort cheese in. Man, I suck.
Yeah, but Roquefort Societe and the like produce superior cheeses anyway. There's something distinctly different and better about their cheeses (I've had roquefort-process pasteurized cheeses next to true roqueforts). Obviously though, it's not the raw milk, and you take a risk because of that element.
That having been said, I really only think that's the case for Roquefort cheese, and I can't put my finger on the reason behind the flavor and texture change. I eat pasteurized cheeses 99% of the time. True Stilton is arguably just as fine a blue cheese as roquefort and must be made with pasteurized milk. It's my goto blue cheese when I'm having people over because of its long-standing tradition, gourmet value, and safety.
Okay, I may make an exception for cheeses that are only available as raw for some reason, but otherwise, yeah, I don't see the need to take my chances with it. If it comes down to what's basically the identical cheese, one made raw and one made pasteurized, I'm taking the pasteurized version.
By the way, I wonder what the opinion is around here for so-called "ultra-pasteurized" dairy products, such as Parmelat milk. These are milk products that are pasteurized using higher temperatures (to the best of my understanding) so that they are shelf-stable at room temperature and don't need to be refrigerated unless opened. While it's pretty rare here (Parmelat is the only brand of the stuff I know of in the U.S.), it's actually the standard for buying milk at a supermarket/convenience store/etc. in Portugal. I have noticed it does taste a little different, but I'm not sure if that's because of the process or because the cows the milk came from are on a different diet (different kinds of grass, etc.) than the milk that's processed using standard pasteurization.
By the way, I wonder what the opinion is around here for so-called "ultra-pasteurized" dairy products, such as Parmelat milk. These are milk products that are pasteurized using higher temperatures (to the best of my understanding) so that they are shelf-stable at room temperature and don't need to be refrigerated unless opened. While it's pretty rare here (Parmelat is the only brand of the stuff I know of in the U.S.), it's actually the standard for buying milk at a supermarket/convenience store/etc. in Portugal. I have noticed it does taste a little different, but I'm not sure if that's because of the process or because the cows the milk came from are on a different diet (different kinds of grass, etc.) than the milk that's processed using standard pasteurization.
It does taste a little different, but it's awesome.
Comments
This would be a pain in the ass to implement, but we're already seeing something similar in NYC with the Health Department giving a letter/color code for restaurants. Blue A, Green B, Yellow C. This gives the consumer a quick reference for easy informed decision making. Is it perfect? Nope, but it's better then expecting the average customer to Google a restaurant's Health Code violations every time they go out to eat.
EDIT: Info
Food Safety Rating for a banana: big green letter A
Food Safety Rating on a bottle of raw milk: F with skull and crossbones.
Price Chopper is off to a good start, but they're only looking at food stuff. I have no idea how they come up with that number and I don't know what that number mean. Is a 28 better then a 30 or is lower better? How bad is a 15? How good is a 50? No clue.
It's like movies. Not all R movies are rated R for the same reason. Some have Nudity, some have Violence and Nudity, and some have are the mother fucking Aristocrats. It would give consumers a reason to stop and think before they buy a product. It wouldn't stop people from buying a product, but it would give them reason flip the box around and read the info on the back. This way they're making a decision for themselves. Same way a parent would read a review of a movie that's rated PG-13 before they send their 10 year old to a see it. Some PG-13 movies are OK for a 10yo, but the parents are making that choice thanks to the rating instead of shrugging off the decision.
We can give you information like: "On average, cold-smoked salmon has a 7% association with Listeria monocytogenes contamination." What does that mean? Is that an A? B? C? F? What does that mean for the consumer? Does that mean that eating 14 servings of cold-smoked salmon will give you listeriosis?
The entire problem is that consumers don't know how to parse the factual information we give them right now. A user-friendly "ranking system" would only serve to further obfuscate the information that consumers claim they want.
Then you want to add, say, a microbial risk assessment to that, which is an entire field with more nuances than we can imagine.
Then, condense it all to A, B, C, D, and F.
The reason that restaurant grading works is that all restaurants in NYC are subject to the exact same guidelines, and there is very strict control over the items being assessed. They're also only looking for cleanliness and procedures; they don't assess the safety of the food in the same way that I do.
Assessing the food supply overall is far more complex than assessing New York City restaurants. Different foods have radically different regulations based on the reality of those food items.
It's like a pack of cigarettes doesn't give the statistical attributable risk of lung cancer, but simply says "Warning: smoking this shit can lead to cancer." You want the full details, you can go do more research. At least with a minimal warning, you have been put on notice that there is a heightened health risk. The burden for more details is shifted to the consumer once they have been warned.
Similarly, if you spend 15 minutes explaining food irradiation to consumers, 90% become favorably disposed to it. You only get about 50% starting off.
Seriously. We just have to educate people. Consumers want to know, but they don't want to have to figure it out when they're in the grocery store on a time budget. I think we can do that.
There is some evidence that pasteurization reduces some of the B-vitamin content in raw milk. It also inhibits the activity of certain enzymes. However, pasteurization doesn't really significantly affect the nutritional value of milk. Raw milk is already not a great source of B vitamins, and the enzymes in the milk either have little human utility or have other sources.
The only real argument I could see in favor of raw milk is that it is a natural probiotic. Most raw milk has a pretty high native population of various lactic acid bacteria. These bacteria aid in digestion. However, yogurt, buttermilk, kefir, and other fermented products made with pasteurized milk are better sources of probiotics. It's never too late to discuss a topic. Particularly if I'm interested in it. I'll talk to you forever.
That's the fourth post in this thread I've brought up Roquefort cheese in. Man, I suck.
That having been said, I really only think that's the case for Roquefort cheese, and I can't put my finger on the reason behind the flavor and texture change. I eat pasteurized cheeses 99% of the time. True Stilton is arguably just as fine a blue cheese as roquefort and must be made with pasteurized milk. It's my goto blue cheese when I'm having people over because of its long-standing tradition, gourmet value, and safety.
By the way, I wonder what the opinion is around here for so-called "ultra-pasteurized" dairy products, such as Parmelat milk. These are milk products that are pasteurized using higher temperatures (to the best of my understanding) so that they are shelf-stable at room temperature and don't need to be refrigerated unless opened. While it's pretty rare here (Parmelat is the only brand of the stuff I know of in the U.S.), it's actually the standard for buying milk at a supermarket/convenience store/etc. in Portugal. I have noticed it does taste a little different, but I'm not sure if that's because of the process or because the cows the milk came from are on a different diet (different kinds of grass, etc.) than the milk that's processed using standard pasteurization.