Hi,
I have listed some other reasons for caution on another post this
morning. All I am saying is that people need to be aware of the dangers of
drinking raw milk from animals that have not been tested. This is just
common sense. I personally would feel awful, if I gave or sold some of my
raw milk to someone who became ill from it. Not all people feel this way, I
know, just as irresponsible companies care little for the health or
well-being of their workers, citing they want no interference from the
government.
I did have a goat that checked positive for brucellosis many years ago.
We destroyed her, not wanting to take a chance that others in the herd would
be infected. I have a "closed" herd but still have my goats tested.
I consider the laws regarding food safety benefitting all of us. There
are some people that would drive carefully and would not need a stop light;
however, there are others who need that stop light. There are some people
who will be responsible with their dairy animals; others are not. So we
blanket the protection over all.
Minelle Paloff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Muldowney" <loscott@envsci.rutgers.edu>
To: "Minelle & Joe Paloff" <mpaloff@1starnet.com>
Cc: "sanet" <sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: protect me from raw milk?
> Minelle & Joe Paloff wrote:
> >
> > The reason that the government ( of the people, by the people ----us, in
> > other words) , outlawed the selling of raw milk was because of the
> > unsanitary practices of some sellers in addition to the great danger of
> > brucellosis, a high risk disease.
>
> So, if I had all the animals in my herd vet-checked and certified free
> of brucellosis, and did not bring on board any other animals which were
> not first similarly screened, how large is the risk of contracting
> brucellosis from drinking the raw milk from such a herd?
>
> Gee whiz, some people send hazardous substances through the mail,
> therefore we should discontinue postal service? Is this kind of
> thinking we really need to enshrine in our laws?
>
> I don't care for the "one size fits all" sort of assumptions embodied in
> having the government "protect" me. If the shoe does not fit, I do not
> want to be made to wear it! It hurts! I keep finding that I am ONLY
> protected from the ability to select which risks I am willing to assume
> and which I am not, in the clear light of my own circumstances, about
> which I have perfect knowledge. Averages, pooled data, and pooled
> assumptions are not especially relevant to me. It is silly to imagine
> that my buying milk or eggs from a neighbor known to me personally is
> identical to my being a resident of an urban area with no opportunity to
> exercise my well-developed sense of which individuals are trustworthy
> are which ones are not with respect to my milk purchases.
>
> > If a person
> > wants to drink raw milk from his/her own animals, that is their right,
in my
> > opinion... But
> > when they want to sell the raw milk to the general public and thus place
> > others at risk, then society has a right to impose conditions to protect
> > public health and safety.
>
> Is there no room for the existence of a different category of
> relationship between the dairy farmer's own family and "the general
> public"? Anybody who has even a single dairy cow probably gets more
> milk than one family will use.
>
> That is what is so maddening about "the government" --the intrusion of
> regulation at a scale inappropriate to the circumstance. It is entirely
> unreasonable to apply regulations designed for anonymous transactions to
> a scale where nothing is anonymous and where actual feedback can and
> does occur. Thus the person in such a circumstance concludes that such
> regulation is idiotic, and MAY extend that assumption inappropriately to
> all governmental oversight, regardless of the details. Having ordinary
> citizens being unable to see any real logical correlation between the
> law of the land and the law of reason is not a stable arrangement.
>
> > Granted, we are not a perfect people, but we do try to protect our
> > citizens, which is why we have food safety laws.
>
> Why must this be framed as "food safety laws" vs. "no food safety
> laws"? Are we completely unable to tell the difference between one
> thing and another? When one of my kids needs help with algebra, should
> the ones who have already mastered the subject matter be forced to sit
> in on the tutoring session, beating their heads against the wall in
> desperation to escape the boredom and futility of it all? (oops, this
> is a bit like going to school, isn't it? No wonder the kids don't like
> it.) Is this in the interests of fairness or impartiality? I think that
> my parental credibility would suffer if I were to institute such a
> plan. I think governmental credibility suffers likewise, and with good
> reason. If it is not possible to establish a nexus between the
> regulation and the outcome, it would be well to examine issues of
> appropriate scale.
>
> Bottom line, if I get brucellosis and die, as a result of stubbornly
> exercising my own judgement, then I'll be dead. This does not
> constitute a public health emergency. So write "it seems fair to me" on
> my tombstone. It is only a private tragedy.
>
> Can we test individual animals for disease or not?
> I would not oppose some kind of quarantine on stock to establish disease
> free status.
>
> Loren Muldowney
>
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 06 2000 - 12:00:25 EST