Comments on: The man ain’t got no cultures http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html Coffee, Cocktails & More Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:11:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Jacob Grier http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333381 Jacob Grier Sat, 17 May 2008 11:20:31 +0000 http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333381 Figuring out the relative risk is more complicated than that. It's not obvious from the number cited how many of those cases came from farms that specialize in raw milk and therefore take extra care to avoid contamination, versus farms that sell pasteurized milk and just occasionally sell raw milk to curious customers. Raw milk is definitely riskier, but I agree: honest labeling should be all that's needed. Figuring out the relative risk is more complicated than that. It’s not obvious from the number cited how many of those cases came from farms that specialize in raw milk and therefore take extra care to avoid contamination, versus farms that sell pasteurized milk and just occasionally sell raw milk to curious customers.

Raw milk is definitely riskier, but I agree: honest labeling should be all that’s needed.

]]> By: RumorsDaily http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333231 RumorsDaily Sat, 17 May 2008 04:55:12 +0000 http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333231 Oh, you answered this, sort of, in the Reason article: "In his testimony at Florez' senate hearing, University of California-Davis professor Michael Payne testified that although raw milk accounts for just a tiny percentage of milk consumption in the U.S., it is responsible for twice the number of disease outbreaks as pasteurized milk." So, the answer is, the risk of illness is enormously higher with unpasteurized milk. Again, this is a case where clear labeling should be enough to allow people to decide on their own. A big old "Hey, if you drink this milk, you're 1000% more likely to get sick than if you drink the milk in the next carton over" should be enough warning. The people who really want the milk can get it, the rest of us who don't care will stay healthy, and all will be right in the world. Oh, you answered this, sort of, in the Reason article: “In his testimony at Florez’ senate hearing, University of California-Davis professor Michael Payne testified that although raw milk accounts for just a tiny percentage of milk consumption in the U.S., it is responsible for twice the number of disease outbreaks as pasteurized milk.”

So, the answer is, the risk of illness is enormously higher with unpasteurized milk.

Again, this is a case where clear labeling should be enough to allow people to decide on their own. A big old “Hey, if you drink this milk, you’re 1000% more likely to get sick than if you drink the milk in the next carton over” should be enough warning. The people who really want the milk can get it, the rest of us who don’t care will stay healthy, and all will be right in the world.

]]> By: RumorsDaily http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333230 RumorsDaily Sat, 17 May 2008 04:51:08 +0000 http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/1092.html#comment-333230 I like the goats! Out of curiosity, how much higher is the risk of illness with the non-pasteurized milk? I assume that the risk of illness is why the law mandates pasteurized milk... or is there another reason? I like the goats!

Out of curiosity, how much higher is the risk of illness with the non-pasteurized milk? I assume that the risk of illness is why the law mandates pasteurized milk… or is there another reason?

]]>