Skip to main content

View Diary: The Illinois Department of Public Health vs. Illinois Raw Milk Farmers (267 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Calling it "Fresh" isn't a lie (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, DrFood, Calamity Jean, Chi

    It just doesn't mean much.

    "Fresh" is a marketing adjective.

    I recognised "Raw", and what it meant and provided the milk is from a TB tested herd, and care is taken with babies, it should be okay.

    We used to drink it almost straight from the cow .... It was chilled, and some of the cream skimmed off but in a glass within an hour of being milked.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:02:19 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  When you get it from your own cow, it's fine. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      twigg, The Dude 415, skrekk

      But otherwise you have to trust the farmer a lot more than you do with pasteurized milk. 'Lie' is an overstatement. 'Deceptive marketing' is a better way to put it.

      •  Trust, regulate and inspect. (6+ / 0-)

        None of it need be onerous.

        Small local producers are nothing without their reputation, they are well-motivated to do things correctly.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:15:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and limited in effect (5+ / 0-)

          if something happens and a small farmer has a problem with the milk, it has a very limited impact.

          Compare that to the monster egg farms that managed to have an impact on something like 60% of the US population. And with convoluted naming and ownership, it was difficult to follow the trail.

 is America's Blog of Record

          by WI Deadhead on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 07:33:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  But the diarist specifically objects to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Andrew Lazarus


          •  No . . . (0+ / 0-)

            I don't, and neither do the farmers. The farmer just want to be able to conduct their business. They have no problem with reasonable inspections

            •  Then why is one of the points of your diary the (0+ / 0-)

              objection to certification? You need to be more clear on this.

              •  Information Available to Me At The Moment . . . (0+ / 0-)

                is limited. I was told that the farmers were given a long list of restrictions to consider. There are only two that they found objectionable, and one is the procurement of a Grade-A dairy license, which I believe requires that the farmer own equipment costing up to $25,000 that's used for pasteurization, which is unnecessary on a raw milk farm.

                In addition, I doubt that the majority of large dairies in the country are inspected on a regular basis. This country can barely keep it's postal service running.

                If the government procured the resources (taxes) to inspect raw milk farmers and large milking factories and if they compared the data, I'd bed money that the raw milk farmers maintain higher levels of sanitation. There's less risk of over-crowding, the animals are less inclined to experience stress and are less likely to contract diseases.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site