![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Oh the logic...
Apr. 23rd, 2010 09:50 amwhere IS it?
From an article about raw milk...
"No food is 100 percent safe," said Cruz, the leader of the Chicago Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a raw milk advocate. "I don't think anyone out there can guarantee that."
Right. So, because you cannot give a 100% guarantee that everything you eat is safe, it totally makes sense to choose the least safe option. What?
Also, people need to realize that taking research statements out of context, instead of listening to what the study's authors actually conclude in their study, makes it no longer a valid reference.
"Research supporting the health benefits of raw milk is limited. Proponents often cite a European study that suggests it may have protective effect against asthma and eczema in children. But the study authors note that other factors might be at play, including the farm environment, and concluded that the risk of pathogens in raw milk outweighs its potential benefits."
So cobbling some things together here... 85 outbreaks from contaminated raw milk in a 10 year span. 1-3% of milk drinkers drink raw milk. So, if raw milk is even half as safe as pasteurized milk there should have been between 85/0.03X0.5=1416.6666 and 85/0.01x0.5=4250 outbreaks from contaminated pasteurized milk over the same time frame.
Did anybody notice those several thousand contamination episodes?
(Feel free to correct me on my math there if you think anything is funky. Maybe I should have divided by 0.5 instead of multiplying? But those numbers are just ridiculous.)
I find it absolutely preposterous that anybody who's ever actually seen a cow could think that there's no chance of bacterial contamination associated with the whole "coming from a cow" thing. I can understand that maybe city folk wouldn't have a good grasp of it, but the farmers bloody well ought to know how real that risk is.
From an article about raw milk...
"No food is 100 percent safe," said Cruz, the leader of the Chicago Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a raw milk advocate. "I don't think anyone out there can guarantee that."
Right. So, because you cannot give a 100% guarantee that everything you eat is safe, it totally makes sense to choose the least safe option. What?
Also, people need to realize that taking research statements out of context, instead of listening to what the study's authors actually conclude in their study, makes it no longer a valid reference.
"Research supporting the health benefits of raw milk is limited. Proponents often cite a European study that suggests it may have protective effect against asthma and eczema in children. But the study authors note that other factors might be at play, including the farm environment, and concluded that the risk of pathogens in raw milk outweighs its potential benefits."
So cobbling some things together here... 85 outbreaks from contaminated raw milk in a 10 year span. 1-3% of milk drinkers drink raw milk. So, if raw milk is even half as safe as pasteurized milk there should have been between 85/0.03X0.5=1416.6666 and 85/0.01x0.5=4250 outbreaks from contaminated pasteurized milk over the same time frame.
Did anybody notice those several thousand contamination episodes?
(Feel free to correct me on my math there if you think anything is funky. Maybe I should have divided by 0.5 instead of multiplying? But those numbers are just ridiculous.)
I find it absolutely preposterous that anybody who's ever actually seen a cow could think that there's no chance of bacterial contamination associated with the whole "coming from a cow" thing. I can understand that maybe city folk wouldn't have a good grasp of it, but the farmers bloody well ought to know how real that risk is.
