Raw Milk and its' proposed ban

IR

Hi Everyone...
just to cross the divide between food consumers and farming even if only online!
I am really interested to get anyone's views on the proposed ban of raw milk which Minister Coveney looks determined to implement

See more details on below thread on first post...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=73027858

I believe it is a huge mistake and a huge vote of no confidence in both our dairy farmers and our regulators, and would advocate that a system of regulation similar to that currently in place for raw milk cheese producers should be instated.

Welcome any feedback...

bogman_bass

the one thing i really miss about dairying is taking a jug of ice cold milk straight from the bulk tank. Dont drink half as much milk now. There is a definate difference in taste.
By all means regulatebut let consumers make up their own mind

LostCovey

bogman_bass wrote: »

the one thing i really miss about dairying is taking a jug of ice cold milk straight from the bulk tank. Dont drink half as much milk now. There is a definate difference in taste.
By all means regulatebut let consumers make up their own mind

The same arguments apply to seat belts, crash helmets........

bogman_bass

what benifits are there for not using saftey belts or helmets?

CJhaughey

bogman_bass wrote: »

what benifits are there for not using saftey belts or helmets?

The benefit is hopefully
removing stupid people that don't wear seatbelts or helmets from the gene pool.

colrow

rotflmao

When we go back to farm in Cornwall we love having the milk straight from the bulk tank.

denballs

could you please explain what you mean by raw milk...for us dubliners?

denballs

ah...found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate

well my opinion is simple.....
in my opinion wanting raw milk is backward thinking.....if the scientific methods wer,nt improvements they wouldnt be the norm...yet all large milk producers/distributing companies use these methods....they are obviously the one,s who have the scientific and proffesional knowledge about both raw and non raw milk......not some farmer who knows as much as it takes to get the milk out of a cow and bottle it..........

But i do not believe it should be made illegal...as it may be an important niche market and a part of certain cultures...i just believe it should be...VERY...clearly labelled if it is raw.

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

The same arguments apply to seat belts, crash helmets........

I would say that the same argument applies in fact to DRIVING motorbikes or cars. We all have the choice to drive even though the associated risks are high (an awful lot higher than drinking raw milk) but seat belts and helmets are the measures put in place to reduce the associated risks.

In Raw Milk, the right to drink it should not be taken away - instead safeguards and measures should be put in place to ensure the risks are minimised

IR

denballs wrote: »

ah...found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_raw_milk_debate

well my opinion is simple.....
in my opinion wanting raw milk is backward thinking....

But i do not believe it should be made illegal...as it may be an important niche market and a part of certain cultures...i just believe it should be...VERY...clearly labelled if it is raw.

You might want to look to something a little more relevant than wikepedia site on American raw milk.
Here's a link to recent article in Irish farmer's Journal
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/v3images/files/IFJ_raw_milk.pdf

BTW, just because something is an old tradition doesn't make it 'backwards'.
Pasteurisation definitely has a place in the world, but so do natural unprocessed foods like raw milk...as you say clear labelling would be necessary

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

I would say that the same argument applies in fact to DRIVING motorbikes or cars. We all have the choice to drive even though the associated risks are high (an awful lot higher than drinking raw milk) but seat belts and helmets are the measures put in place to reduce the associated risks.

In Raw Milk, the right to drink it should not be taken away - instead safeguards and measures should be put in place to ensure the risks are minimised

Exactly, safeguards and measures like testing of the raw product............. pasteurisation ............ testing of the pasteurised milk before it can be sold ............ monitoring of the cold chain ............. quality control system operated by the processors and.....oh ..........right

LostCovey

IR

In fact there have been far more illnesses worldwide as a result of drinking pasteurised milk.
there are other methods of minimising risks associated with milk, and those who follow them have clear test results.

Min

I drink raw milk, from my bullk tank.

IR

Min wrote: »

I drink raw milk, from my bullk tank.

According to a recent study albeit carried out on a small scale basis - apparently so too do 82% of dairy farmers in Ireland.
No-one will every be able to legislate against that!

johngalway

Motoring forum is that way.

People should be allowed to drink raw milk, should they wish to, once information is provided to them on any risks associated with it. People are allowed to consume and ingest all matter of things legally which may or may not be of benefit to them. Alcohol, tobacco, high salt and high sugar foods etc. Put info on the carton/bottle/whatever and let adults decide for themselves whether they want to drink it or not.

whelan1

most of us on here drink water from our own wells, whats the difference in this and drinking milk from your own tank... why pay extra for bottled water that is just the same as your own well water

moy83

What are the dangers of drinking raw milking ? I only ever drank milk from the tank when we were milking and so did all my brothers and sisters and a few cousins . I never heard anyone of us getting sick from it .

IR

Bear in mind now that I am in favour of allowing the sale of raw milk from regulated farms...
but just to be balanced...

The FSAI states the following:"By consuming unpasteurised milk you are placing yourself at an unnecessary risk of serious illness.
Unpasteurised milk can contain disease causing bacteria (pathogens)."

the FSAI recommends in fact that dairy farmers buy a small pasteurising unit if they wish to drink their own milk...

In particular the focus by most food safety authorities would be on Listeria and E-Coli. Our government seems particularly concerned about possible transmission of TB also.


This was the Minister for Agriculture's response in the Dail on 5th July when asked why he wanted to ban raw milk:

"The reason for maintaining a ban on the sale of raw milk for human consumption is to protect public health. This is based on strong advice from both food safety and public health professionals. There have been very serious health issues associated with the drinking of raw milk in Ireland and in a number of other countries."

He went on to say that:

"While public health is the overriding consideration, it is also worth noting that legislation required to allow the sale of raw milk on a restricted basis would be much more complicated and would impose very significant extra cost on my Department in relation to oversight and enforcement. Failure to adequately oversee such high-risk business operations could result in serious national and international reputational risk, for instance in the event of an outbreak of TB being linked to the consumption of raw milk purchased from an establishment approved by the competent authority. It should be noted that the prevalence of TB in herds in Ireland puts us in a different position to most other Member States in the EU where the disease has been eradicated. It is inappropriate that Ireland should adopt the same approach to the consumption of raw milk as countries that do not have the same difficulty with TB and therefore have no associated risk.

In all the circumstances I am satisfied that a ban on the sale of raw milk for human consumption is fully justified. I do not propose to ban the sale of cheese or other products manufactured from raw milk, as the same risk to public health does not arise.
Article 10 (8) of EU Regulation 853 of 2004 provides that a Member State may, of its own initiative and subject to the general provisions of the Treaty, maintain or establish national rules prohibiting or restricting the placing on the market within its territory of raw milk or raw cream intended for direct human consumption. Section 54 of the Health Act of 1947 (as amended by Section 25 of the Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006) has been identified as the appropriate primary legislation for this purpose and the Department of Health has agreed to promote a Statutory Instrument under that Act on behalf of my Department. The latest indicative timeframe for the introduction of the S.I. is end 2011, which includes allowance for a 3-month EU notification period."

Rovi

My siblings and I, and the families of the men who worked on this farm, were all reared on the 'raw' milk produced here, to no known ill-effects that anyone I've asked can recall.
We're out of milk a good few years now, but I still look forward to drinking the stuff at my relatives' farms.

Best of luck to any bureaucrat that tried their luck at stopping us

whelan1

a neighbour of mine is selling it, he also sells cheese... fair play is what i say! david tiernan is his name and the cheese goes under the name glebe brethan cheese, www.glebebrethan.com/

IR

Rovi wrote: »

My siblings and I, and the families of the men who worked on this farm, were all reared on the 'raw' milk produced here, to no known ill-effects that anyone I've asked can recall.
We're out of milk a good few years now, but I still look forward to drinking the stuff at my relatives' farms.

Best of luck to any bureaucrat that tried their luck at stopping us

Anyone in favour of sale of Raw Milk continuing might pop over to the Slow Food Ireland Website and sign the petition - also if really keen to stop this ban, there's lots more info there including instructions on writing to your local representatives... best possible way to be heard!
http://www.slowfoodireland.com/index.php/food/features/112-raw-milk.html

IR

whelan1 wrote: »

a neighbour of mine is selling it, he also sells cheese... fair play is what i say! david tiernan is his name and the cheese goes under the name glebe brethan cheese, www.glebebrethan.com/

David's fantastic, and has really got the makings of a viable small business proposition, maybe even employing someone locally to go on the road in a van etc... he can get €1.30 + per litre for his milk this way - makes you wonder why the department of Ag wouldn't be doing more to help and stop trying to ban raw milk

LostCovey

johngalway wrote: »

Put info on the carton/bottle/whatever and let adults decide for themselves whether they want to drink it or not.

How can it be restricted to adults??????????

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

How can it be restricted to adults??????????

Are you asking the question - How could anyone possibly want to restrict sale to adults?
Or are you asking the question -How could one endure that children do not drink raw milk?

If the first (probably not!), then the answer is: Just another example of 'Nanny State' politics where the government feels it is acceptable to take away consumer choice.

If the latter, then the answer is: by the use of clear and informative labelling.

It should be remembered that there is not even one reported death in Ireland associated with the drinking of raw milk -it's not like dairy farmers are trying to market Cyanide and asking for government support...
Further, if as a nation we are so concerned about children's health, we would be far better served in banning sugary breakfast cereals which pose a far greater risk to the long term health of Irish children

Rovi

Why should children NOT drink it?

Every dairy farmer's children that I know of, and many of their neighbours, friends, and relatives, were reared on raw milk.

For generations.

It's now suddenly toxic somehow???

doctor evil

IR wrote: »

Anyone in favour of sale of Raw Milk continuing might pop over to the Slow Food Ireland Website and sign the petition - also if really keen to stop this ban, there's lots more info there including instructions on writing to your local representatives... best possible way to be heard!
http://www.slowfoodireland.com/index.php/food/features/112-raw-milk.html

Is it normal for a petition to ask for address/number/email?

vincenzolorenzo

We drank raw milk at home all my life until milking cows finished up a couple of years ago. Never did any of us any harm. But if I was a dairy farmer i would be very careful about selling the stuff to the general public. If, God forbid, something were to happen to someone who bought your milk surely they could take a claim against you and cause all sorts of hassle? Different when its just your family but when Joe public gets involved things can get a lot more complicated surely?

IR

doctor evil wrote: »

Is it normal for a petition to ask for address/number/email?

I think they ask to ensure the validity of the petition.
Apparently online petitions which just use email addresses etc aren't worth anything. I know Slow food to be a very honourable organisation and am positive that your details would only be kept securely to ensure the validity of the petition upon presentation to Government...

LostCovey

Rovi wrote: »

Why should children NOT drink it?

Every dairy farmer's children that I know of, and many of their neighbours, friends, and relatives, were reared on raw milk.

For generations.

It's now suddenly toxic somehow???

No this is not about toxicity, it is about the risk of infection. Pasteurisation would not do anything for toxicity anyway.

Everyone who grew up on a farm drank raw milk, for generations, since cattle were first domesticated. I suppose farming has changed a lot in that period of time, and so has people's expectations of food safety. Farms are bigger. Children have a very sheltered upbringing and maybe less ability to fight bugs nowadays. Raw milk is advanced by some enthusiasts as a way to help this, but it is also a hazard to children who are not able to fight off some bugs.

Childhood mortality has fallen drastically in the past two centuries, and any list of the reasons for that would probably include somewhere (not at the top, not at the bottom either) the prevention of simple food-borne illnesses.

Everyone focussed in Itreland on the prevention of Brucellosis because it was the most obvious risk, along with TB, but plenty of other food-borne illnesses are prevented if you kill the pathogens that cause them.

The argument that your family (and my family) did this for generations without any ill effects does not hold water, because there was and is plenty of evidence that pasteurisation has greatly improved public health.

The same type of argument is often advanced in favour of homoeopathy ("it worked for me") and that is the other side of the same coin - it does not take away from the fact that when homeopathy is tested scientifically it fails.

When pasteurisation is tested scientifically, it prevents illness.

And while adults have the perfect right to take risks with their own health, by parachuting, wing-walking, praising the Green Party at the Ploughing or drinking raw milk, they should not really have the right to put children in harm's way, and that is really the only justification for involving the law in the matter.

LostCovey

5live

IR wrote: »

In fact there have been far more illnesses worldwide as a result of drinking pasteurised milk.

I for one would like to see a source for this statement please

IR

5live wrote: »

I for one would like to see a source for this statement please

Between 1980 and 2005, 41 outbreaks were reported to the CDC attributing 19,531 illnesses to the consumption of pasteurised milk and milk products. This is 10.7 times the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

No this is not about toxicity, it is about the risk of infection. Pasteurisation would not do anything for toxicity anyway.

Everyone who grew up on a farm drank raw milk, for generations, since cattle were first domesticated. I suppose farming has changed a lot in that period of time, and so has people's expectations of food safety. Farms are bigger. Children have a very sheltered upbringing and maybe less ability to fight bugs nowadays. Raw milk is advanced by some enthusiasts as a way to help this, but it is also a hazard to children who are not able to fight off some bugs.

Childhood mortality has fallen drastically in the past two centuries, and any list of the reasons for that would probably include somewhere (not at the top, not at the bottom either) the prevention of simple food-borne illnesses.

Everyone focussed in Itreland on the prevention of Brucellosis because it was the most obvious risk, along with TB, but plenty of other food-borne illnesses are prevented if you kill the pathogens that cause them.

The argument that your family (and my family) did this for generations without any ill effects does not hold water, because there was and is plenty of evidence that pasteurisation has greatly improved public health.

The same type of argument is often advanced in favour of homoeopathy ("it worked for me") and that is the other side of the same coin - it does not take away from the fact that when homeopathy is tested scientifically it fails.

When pasteurisation is tested scientifically, it prevents illness.

And while adults have the perfect right to take risks with their own health, by parachuting, wing-walking, praising the Green Party at the Ploughing or drinking raw milk, they should not really have the right to put children in harm's way, and that is really the only justification for involving the law in the matter.

LostCovey

Clear labelling with advice on consumption can easily deal with you first point.
Any parents intending to give raw milk to children unused to it can be advised to start with small quantities.

That the consumption of raw milk carries some risk is undeniable. The question is whether raw milk carries a unique risk that distinguishes it from other foods ordinarily consumed – such as pasteurised milk, mince burgers, chicken, duck eggs, hot dogs, or deli meats?

Much more dangerous to the health of our children is the proliferation of sugary snacks and cereals and processed foods. These types of foods put children far more directly in harm's way.

And, furthermore as stated above there are far more cases of ilnesses relating to pasteurised milk reported each year than to raw milk.

Of the tiny amount of ilnesses reported in Ireland in the last 7 years attributed to raw milk - cases were all from unregulated producers as there have never been regulations specifically applied for raw milk producers. Apply fair but stringent regulations as exist for say raw milk cheese producers and you minimise risks to well below an acceptable level

5live

IR wrote: »

Between 1980 and 2005, 41 outbreaks were reported to the CDC attributing 19,531 illnesses to the consumption of pasteurised milk and milk products. This is 10.7 times the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.

And the proportions of raw milk consumption to pasteurised milk consumption in those figures was............???

If the ratio of raw and pasteurised milk consumed was 50:50 then those figures would be alarmng for consumers of pasteurised milk. If only 1% of the population consumes raw milk and 99% consume pasteurised milk then the raw milk consumers better watch out. Did that article state the relative proportions?

And 'illnesses'...... Does lactose intolerence constitute an illness or is it a transmittable disease such as brucellosis or what exactly.......?

Gis a source or article where the figures come from. Or as the good book says 'the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose';)

5live

IR wrote: »

And, furthermore as stated above there are far more cases of ilnesses relating to pasteurised milk reported each year than to raw milk.

Again a question of proportions that consume raw versus pasteurised milk;)

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

Any parents intending to give raw milk to children unused to it can be advised to start with small quantities.

This might help but if there's TB or Salmonella in it, it probably won't matter.

IR wrote: »

That the consumption of raw milk carries some risk is undeniable. The question is whether raw milk carries a unique risk that distinguishes it from other foods ordinarily consumed – such as pasteurised milk, mince burgers, chicken, duck eggs, hot dogs, or deli meats?

I don't think there is a simple process to neutralise the risk in the way pasteurisation does for milk, that is the problem. So for these products, the work is done further up or down the production chain (like the campaign to keep dirty cattle out of factories, and the public education work on getting us to cook our burgers well, not overload fridges etc. These are all attempts to get around the fact that there isn't a simple reliable process that will kill the bugs and the risk for these foods like there is for milk.

IR wrote: »

Much more dangerous to the health of our children is the proliferation of sugary snacks and cereals and processed foods. These types of foods put children far more directly in harm's way

Yes I agree, and this is a great point to make but are you not making a case here for more regulation of free choice in the consumption of risky foods, and against the thrust of your overall argument?

IR wrote: »

And, furthermore as stated above there are far more cases of ilnesses relating to pasteurised milk reported each year than to raw milk.

Of the tiny amount of ilnesses reported in Ireland in the last 7 years attributed to raw milk - cases were all from unregulated producers as there have never been regulations specifically applied for raw milk producers. Apply fair but stringent regulations as exist for say raw milk cheese producers and you minimise risks to well below an acceptable level

Very few cases of death by venomous snake-bite in Ireland either....... hardly means they are safe though.

Either you are not on a total wind-up mission or you are genuinely arguing that raw milk is safer than pasteurised milk - either way there is really no point continuing this.

LostCovey

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

Between 1980 and 2005, 41 outbreaks were reported to the CDC attributing 19,531 illnesses to the consumption of pasteurised milk and milk products. This is 10.7 times the number of illnesses attributed to raw milk during the same period.

Sorry, one more thing:

Before you go quoting the Centers for Disease Control in support of your views, you really should read what they have to say on the topic.

See:

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-questions-and-answers.html

LostCovey

IR

5live wrote: »

And the proportions of raw milk consumption to pasteurised milk consumption in those figures was............???

If the ratio of raw and pasteurised milk consumed was 50:50 then those figures would be alarmng for consumers of pasteurised milk. If only 1% of the population consumes raw milk and 99% consume pasteurised milk then the raw milk consumers better watch out. Did that article state the relative proportions?

And 'illnesses'...... Does lactose intolerence constitute an illness or is it a transmittable disease such as brucellosis or what exactly.......?

Gis a source or article where the figures come from. Or as the good book says 'the devil can quote scripture for his own purpose';)

Hi 5Live - See this well sourced document a letter from Darina Allen addressed to the head of FSAI...

http://www.slowfoodireland.com/index.php/food/features/112-raw-milk.html?q=%2Findex.php%2Ffood%2Ffeatures%2F112-raw-milk.html&start=1

and another quote from it as follows:

"From these statistics, it is clear that pasteurisation offers no guarantee of safety. We cannot, however, determine from them whether commercial pasteurised milk is safer or more dangerous than locally produced and distributed, grass-fed, raw milk. There are three reasons for this: first, we have no accurate estimation of how many people drink raw milk; second, few of the reports attributing illness to raw milk offer sufficient evidence for the attribution; and third, most foodborne illnesses are never reported.

The consumption of all foods, including milk – whether pasteurised or unpasteurised – inherently carries some degree of risk. Some organisms or their associated toxins can survive the pasteurisation process; these and others can also contaminate milk after it has been pasteurised. Pasteurised milk may contain a whole host of pathogens and associated toxins, including:
Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A
Salmonella species
Escherichia coli
Listeria monocytogenes
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis
Bacillus species
Clostridium species
Yersinia entercolitica (k)

Clearly, however, if the CDC has recorded on average nearly 800 illnesses per year attributed to pasteurised milk and pasteurised milk products, raw milk cannot be singled out as “inherently dangerous.”

By the way, I would not see the CDC quoting intolerance figures, given that CDC is short for Centre for DISEASE Control.
In any event this is simply an illustrative point to show that Raw Milk should not be singled out from other foods which have risks. I, and producers of raw milk are well aware of risks This is why I feel it is important to have a set of regulations in place for producers of raw milk intended for sale to consumers...

IR

Firstly, I am very happy to refer anyone interested to sites like that as well as advice from our own Food safety authority here.
http://www.fsai.ie/search-results.html?searchString=raw%20milk
It is an interesting point about the argument between those in favour of raw milk and those against. Those arguing for raw milk seem to present a very balanced view, giving reference to articles and info on both sides. Where those against raw milk never seem to do more than refer to the same one sided articles and sites.
I think it is crucial that drinkers of raw milk are well informed and would always refer people to sites like the FSAI, CDC, FDA etc - again we come back to well educated consumers making an informed choice...
To address your points:
When looking at TB there are a couple of factors, one is that even our own FSAI says that the risk of transmission from an infected animal is extremely low. Extra testing such as happens with milk destined for raw milk cheese can address this risk. No farmer would consider milking from an animal who is showing lesions, and it is only from animals such as this and further that show lesions for several months that the tiny chance of transmission could occur. Salmonella, as we all know is a very real risk in a proliferation of foods and not just raw milk, there is some interesting info here- http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/salmonella_T3.html - regarding the overuse of anti-biotics leading to an imbalance in the cow’s natural ability to stave off bacteria, also to the protective enzymes and proteins found within unpasteurised milk. Again though, regardless of the validity of anything contained there, regular testing can identify potential problems. Potential producers could be asked for instance to carry out tests over a prolonged period prior to releasing their milk for sale initially.
In relation to minimising risks and the comparison of raw milk to other foods; there are plenty of things that can be done at farm level to minimise risks.
Additional testing of herds, regular voluntary testing of the milk itself, extra hygiene regulations in the milking parlour, bottling only taking place at an approved onsite facility, to name but a few. As well as of course labelling to advise consumers about raw milk. The UK, by the way has implemented this system successfully.
I am glad you agree with my point about the proliferation of processed foods and their dangers – one of the key points or questions is ‘why raw milk is being singled out from other foods which pose threats’, so rather than nullifying other points in relation to choice, I am genuinely asking the question “why if banning raw milk the government is also not looking to other ‘hazardous’ foods.?” Once again I point to a desire for regulation, In the same way that regulations are to be welcomed for raw milk producers, I would not be against by any means further regulations being imposed on other food industries, eg warnings on labels of sugary cereals.
As mentioned above; the comparison with the dearth of illnesses reported from consumption of pasteurised milk is simply an illustrative point to show that Raw Milk should not be singled out from other foods which have risks. I, and producers of raw milk are well aware of risks This is why I feel it is important to have a set of regulations in place for producers of raw milk intended for sale to consumers. As well as why I would not advocate that every dairy farm around should have a license to sell raw milk.

Another important point is that by banning raw milk we are denying small farmers access to a very real and viable business opportunity. In this economy where food is one of the few shining lights, our government is putting impediments to putting new business in place, rather than agreeing to engage with these producers and work together to come up with a set of regulations which would satisfy both sides.

You should check out this article in Today’s Irish Times also

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/0719/1224300937914.html

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

When looking at TB there are a couple of factors, one is that even our own FSAI says that the risk of transmission from an infected animal is extremely low. Extra testing such as happens with milk destined for raw milk cheese can address this risk.

No there is no testing of milk for TB in this country, you are mistaken about this.

The control measure is pasteurisation

IR wrote: »

Salmonella, as we all know is a very real risk in a proliferation of foods and not just raw milk, there is some interesting info here- http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/salmonella_T3.html - regarding the overuse of anti-biotics leading to an imbalance in the cow’s natural ability to stave off bacteria, also to the protective enzymes and proteins found within unpasteurised milk. Again though, regardless of the validity of anything contained there, regular testing can identify potential problems. Potential producers could be asked for instance to carry out tests over a prolonged period prior to releasing their milk for sale initially.
In relation to minimising risks and the comparison of raw milk to other foods; there are plenty of things that can be done at farm level to minimise risks.

You are suggesting that testing is a helpful control measure, and I agree.

Milk is currently pasteurised and tested. You are suggesting we discard one of these measures. This increases the risk, but you believe the increase in risk is either slight or acceptable, and I differ. I do not believe we are likely to agree.

Because at the end of the day your approach is ideological, and much of the momentum behind this anti-pasteurisation sentiment comes from a kind of anti-science movement that gave us organic farming and homoeopathy.

Organic farming is good for the environment, but the claims for health benefits have not the slightest trace of evidence behind them.

QUOTE=IR;73366912]Another important point is that by banning raw milk we are denying small farmers access to a very real and viable business opportunity. In this economy where food is one of the few shining lights, our government is putting impediments to putting new business in place, rather than agreeing to engage with these producers and work together to come up with a set of regulations which would satisfy both sides.[/QUOTE]

Because we can make money from it we should ignore the risks??????? For God's sake.

Re the Irish Times article, its more of the same tired anti-science ideological nonsense that doesn't address the issues - in fact sounds like it was written by you. That health supplement is always full of pious claptrap anyway and one issue regularly contradicts another. I bet they have had a big feature about Listeria and pregnancy at some point.

LC

LostCovey

sh1tstirrer

How exactly do they propose to ban farmers from using raw milk? Arrest them while they are walking across their yards with a jug of milk in hand :rolleyes:

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

No there is no testing of milk for TB in this country, you are mistaken about this."

My apologies - a sleight of hand, I was of course as you are probably aware already referring to herd testing.

LostCovey wrote: »

You are suggesting that testing is a helpful control measure, and I agree.

I am glad!

LostCovey wrote: »

Milk is currently pasteurised and tested. You are suggesting we discard one of these measures. This increases the risk

Yes, I believe that with proper regulations of farms producing raw milk we can minimise the risk to well within an acceptable level, even by taking away this, 'measure'

LostCovey wrote: »

at the end of the day your approach is ideological, and much of the momentum behind this anti-pasteurisation sentiment comes from a kind of anti-science movement that gave us organic farming and homoeopathy.

On the other hand, much of what is behind the type of argument you support is huge multi-national corporations with the money behind them to produce studies with outcomes they desire

LostCovey wrote: »

we can make money from it we should ignore the risks??????? For God's sake.

Because it is a viable business opportunity for small farmers we should encourage a dialogue between those producers and the relevant government agencies to encourage rather than block small businesses. This has successfully been done in several other countries, including our neighbours in the UK

LostCovey wrote: »

Re the Irish Times article, its more of the same tired anti-science ideological nonsense...

you should also take a look at the following articles in order to inform yourself a little better on the issues:
http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/v3images/files/IFJ_raw_milk.pdf
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/agri-food-leaders-hit-out-at-government-plan-to-ban-raw-milk-160329.html
http://cowluck.blogspot.com/2011/06/unpasteurised-milk-raw-issue.html

As with the government you take the parts that you can disagree with to any extent and blatantly ignore those which you can't. It is quite clear that you and the old guard of civil servants currently advising the minister would get along well.

IR

sh1tstirrer wrote: »

How exactly do they propose to ban farmers from using raw milk? Arrest them while they are walking across their yards with a jug of milk in hand :rolleyes:

Ha! No, don't think they could ever legislate against the practice of farmers drinking their own milk!
We're talking about selling raw milk to consumers who want to buy it - the Minister for Agriculture has set the wheels in motion to ban the sale of raw milk...

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

http://www.farmersjournal.ie/site/v3images/files/IFJ_raw_milk.pdf
http://www.irishexaminer.com/business/agri-food-leaders-hit-out-at-government-plan-to-ban-raw-milk-160329.html
http://cowluck.blogspot.com/2011/06/unpasteurised-milk-raw-issue.html

As with the government you take the parts that you can disagree with to any extent and blatantly ignore those which you can't. It is quite clear that you and the old guard of civil servants currently advising the minister would get along well.

You now disregard the Centers for Disease Control, which you were originally SELECTIVELY QUOTING (gosh, imagine) in support of your argument, and you are now saying "Don't mind dat science stuff, look at what it says in the Cork Examiner and Da Journal"?????

You have to be on a wind-up mission.

Yeah, good one.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid brother.


LostCovey

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

You now disregard the Centers for Disease Control, which you were originally SELECTIVELY QUOTING (gosh, imagine) in support of your argument, and you are now saying "Don't mind dat science stuff, look at what it says in the Cork Examiner and Da Journal"?????

You have to be on a wind-up mission.

Yeah, good one.

Keep drinking the Kool-Aid brother.


LostCovey

I haven't disregarded anything! As mentioned, I am happy to examine all sides of the argument but what is clear is that you have made a very good job of showing in all your responses that you are not.

5live

IR wrote: »

Hi 5Live - See this well sourced document a letter from Darina Allen addressed to the head of FSAI...

http://www.slowfoodireland.com/index.php/food/features/112-raw-milk.html?q=%2Findex.php%2Ffood%2Ffeatures%2F112-raw-milk.html&start=1

and another quote from it as follows:

"From these statistics, it is clear that pasteurisation offers no guarantee of safety. We cannot, however, determine from them whether commercial pasteurised milk is safer or more dangerous than locally produced and distributed, grass-fed, raw milk. There are three reasons for this: first, we have no accurate estimation of how many people drink raw milk; second, few of the reports attributing illness to raw milk offer sufficient evidence for the attribution; and third, most foodborne illnesses are never reported.

The consumption of all foods, including milk – whether pasteurised or unpasteurised – inherently carries some degree of risk. Some organisms or their associated toxins can survive the pasteurisation process; these and others can also contaminate milk after it has been pasteurised. Pasteurised milk may contain a whole host of pathogens and associated toxins, including:
Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A
Salmonella species
Escherichia coli
Listeria monocytogenes
Mycobacterium paratuberculosis
Bacillus species
Clostridium species
Yersinia entercolitica (k)

Clearly, however, if the CDC has recorded on average nearly 800 illnesses per year attributed to pasteurised milk and pasteurised milk products, raw milk cannot be singled out as “inherently dangerous.”

By the way, I would not see the CDC quoting intolerance figures, given that CDC is short for Centre for DISEASE Control.
In any event this is simply an illustrative point to show that Raw Milk should not be singled out from other foods which have risks. I, and producers of raw milk are well aware of risks This is why I feel it is important to have a set of regulations in place for producers of raw milk intended for sale to consumers...

Were you just quoting Darina Allen, who has an adjenda of her own while decrying multinationals as having an adgenda of their own:rolleyes:

You conveniently ignored my questioning of the relative numbers of consumers of raw and pasteurised milk while confidently stating that pasteurised milk has 10 times the number of reported cases of food bourne disease cases.

Let me simplify it for you. If 10% of the population consumes raw milk then, statistically, one would expect 10 times the number of reported cases for pasteurised as against raw milk if the risks were equal. But if the numbers were 1% and 99% then the numbers of illness in the pasteurised milk group would be 10 times higher but the proportions the same ,again if risk was equal.

Quoting the numbers above doesnt show that pasteurised milk is more risky than raw but to me it does show that the risks are higher from consuming raw milk.

As someone with a comprimised immune system who spent months on antibiotics after contracting brucellosis i honestly think this argument is simply insane. All food consumption poses a risk and a treatment that inherently reduces the risks of a near essential foodstuff is IMO a no-brainer:pac:

You want raw milk buy a cow;)

IR

5live wrote: »

Were you just quoting Darina Allen, who has an adjenda of her own while decrying multinationals as having an adgenda of their own:rolleyes:

You conveniently ignored my questioning of the relative numbers of consumers of raw and pasteurised milk while confidently stating that pasteurised milk has 10 times the number of reported cases of food bourne disease cases.

Let me simplify it for you. If 10% of the population consumes raw milk then, statistically, one would expect 10 times the number of reported cases for pasteurised as against raw milk if the risks were equal. But if the numbers were 1% and 99% then the numbers of illness in the pasteurised milk group would be 10 times higher but the proportions the same ,again if risk was equal.

Quoting the numbers above doesnt show that pasteurised milk is more risky than raw but to me it does show that the risks are higher from consuming raw milk.

As someone with a comprimised immune system who spent months on antibiotics after contracting brucellosis i honestly think this argument is simply insane. All food consumption poses a risk and a treatment that inherently reduces the risks of a near essential foodstuff is IMO a no-brainer:pac:

You want raw milk buy a cow;)

To be fair to Darina Allen - her agenda appears to be promoting the health of the nation, can the same be said for multinationals?
The article states quite clearly that it is impossible to assess figures for raw milk consumption, and as such to come up with the definitive figures you seek...

Look, the point about the relative risks of raw vs pasteurised milk is there to question why raw milk is singled out when plenty of other foodstuffs also carry risks, not to get in to the nitty gritty of a debate on those particular food stuffs as it is slightly off point to say the least...

Once again I would point to the fact that I am in favour of strictly regulated producers only being allowed to sell raw milk.

The UK has labelling which includes advice for people with compromised immune systems, and I believe our labels should carry the same message in Ireland. I am genuinely very sorry to hear of your health issue - I am sure you are advised not to consume raw milk cheese, equally you would be advised not to drink raw milk - just because it is not appropriate for you though; does that mean that others should forego their chance to potentially strengthen their immune systems through the drinking of raw milk?
I don't understand why, when our farmers are always going to drink raw milk, that consumers who aren't in a position to 'buy a cow' should be denied the chance.

I trust the farmer from whom I buy raw milk and I believe that his practices on the farm minimise risk to within an acceptable level. I don't think the government should have the right to take away my choice to continue to buy and consume raw milk.

There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the least the government can agree to do is discuss the issue and give people who want to drink raw milk the chance to put their arguments forward - I hope you will agree at least on this point.

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

5live wrote: »

Were you just quoting Darina Allen, who has an adjenda of her own while decrying multinationals as having an adgenda of their own:rolleyes:

You conveniently ignored my questioning of the relative numbers of consumers of raw and pasteurised milk while confidently stating that pasteurised milk has 10 times the number of reported cases of food bourne disease cases.

Let me simplify it for you. If 10% of the population consumes raw milk then, statistically, one would expect 10 times the number of reported cases for pasteurised as against raw milk if the risks were equal. But if the numbers were 1% and 99% then the numbers of illness in the pasteurised milk group would be 10 times higher but the proportions the same ,again if risk was equal.

Quoting the numbers above doesnt show that pasteurised milk is more risky than raw but to me it does show that the risks are higher from consuming raw milk.

As someone with a comprimised immune system who spent months on antibiotics after contracting brucellosis i honestly think this argument is simply insane. All food consumption poses a risk and a treatment that inherently reduces the risks of a near essential foodstuff is IMO a no-brainer:pac:

You want raw milk buy a cow;)

To be fair to Darina Allen - her agenda appears to be promoting the health of the nation, can the same be said for multinationals?
The article states quite clearly that it is impossible to assess figures for raw milk consumption, and as such to come up with the definitive figures you seek...

Look, the point about the relative risks of raw vs pasteurised milk is there to question why raw milk is singled out when plenty of other foodstuffs also carry risks, not to get in to the nitty gritty of a debate on those particular food stuffs as it is slightly off point to say the least...

Once again I would point to the fact that I am in favour of strictly regulated producers only being allowed to sell raw milk.

The UK has labelling which includes advice for people with compromised immune systems, and I believe our labels should carry the same message in Ireland. I am genuinely very sorry to hear of your health issue - I am sure you are advised not to consume raw milk cheese, equally you would be advised not to drink raw milk - just because it is not appropriate for you though; does that mean that others should forego their chance to potentially strengthen their immune systems through the drinking of raw milk?
I don't understand why, when our farmers are always going to drink raw milk, that consumers who aren't in a position to 'buy a cow' should be denied the chance.

I trust the farmer from whom I buy raw milk and I believe that his practices on the farm minimise risk to within an acceptable level. I don't think the government should have the right to take away my choice to continue to buy and consume raw milk.

There are clearly two sides to this argument, but the least the government can agree to do is discuss the issue and give people who want to drink raw milk the chance to put their arguments forward - I hope you will agree at least on this point.

I doubt if there will be a meeting of minds on this IR. For as long as your arguments are based on trusts and beliefs and the scriptures of a wannabe foodie like John McKenna in the Oirish Toimes there's little point in discussing or trying to discuss the well founded basis of pasteurisation with you. When a rational scientific argument meets an emotional one it always ends in tears.

LC

IR

LostCovey wrote: »

I doubt if there will be a meeting of minds on this IR. For as long as your arguments are based on trusts and beliefs and the scriptures of a wannabe foodie like John McKenna in the Oirish Toimes there's little point in discussing or trying to discuss the well founded basis of pasteurisation with you. When a rational scientific argument meets an emotional one it always ends in tears.

LC

As it is quite clear you won't be satisfied until one of your posts - which doesn't deal with any of the points raised properly and repeats the same mantra about pasteurisation as the answer to everything - is posted as the last word - here you go, I'll let you have it - Twice!!

LostCovey wrote: »

I doubt if there will be a meeting of minds on this IR. For as long as your arguments are based on trusts and beliefs and the scriptures of a wannabe foodie like John McKenna in the Oirish Toimes there's little point in discussing or trying to discuss the well founded basis of pasteurisation with you. When a rational scientific argument meets an emotional one it always ends in tears.

LC

LostCovey

IR wrote: »

As it is quite clear you won't be satisfied until one of your posts - which doesn't deal with any of the points raised properly and repeats the same mantra about pasteurisation as the answer to everything - is posted as the last word - here you go, I'll let you have it - Twice!!

I was reading one of your cited scientific journals this week ....well..... Da Journal actually, and I see that your favourite researcher Darina Allen is making the same arguments as you made but the effect is spoiled by a really well argued editorial (aka The Dealer) making the same points I made ....and a few more too! It reads as though Da Journal has been reading boards.ie this week!

I might start buying it again, its a really impressive publication

LostCovey

IR

Apparently there will be a raw milk panel and workshop at the Virginia show on 30th July - anyone interested should go along!

5live

LostCovey wrote: »

I was reading one of your cited scientific journals this week ....well..... Da Journal actually, and I see that your favourite researcher Darina Allen is making the same arguments as you made but the effect is spoiled by a really well argued editorial (aka The Dealer) making the same points I made ....and a few more too! It reads as though Da Journal has been reading boards.ie this week!

I might start buying it again, its a really impressive publication

LostCovey

Dont be silly Simon. Sure dont the dept get the journal for you for free;)