> specific to one milk product doesn't pass muster
No it's not obvious. That's the point. The CDC has admitted those deaths were caused by a product (queso fresco) that is commonly contaminated after production. There are ZERO deaths attributed to consuming raw liquid milk.
> such a small sample you can't deduce anything
Apparently all data from 1998-2011 on all reported illness and deaths from raw milk products is too small for Chicken Little.
And if this data set is too "small" why are the conclusions drawn by the CDC ("raw milk is deadly!") valid? Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?
> Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?
There is no paucity of data. There are very small numbers of people who drink raw milk. And thus there are small numbers of people harmed by raw milk. But it's pretty clear that raw milk is considerably riskier than pasteurised milk.
Whether adults should be allowed to make stupid choices is another topic. I'd suggest that adults should not be allowed to inflict those stupid choices onto children - who are going to be at even greater risk from harm.
You keep talking about death. Having to have kidneys transplanted because e coli has destroyed them is not death, but I hope you agree it's a severe consequence from eating food.
> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that of 239 hospitalizations caused by tainted dairy products from 1993 through 2006, 202 involved raw milk or raw-milk cheese. Nearly two-thirds of the patients were younger than 20. "Parents go to raw milk because they hear it's good for kids' allergies," says Michele Jay-Russell, a veterinarian and food safety specialist at the University of California-Davis who has studied the outbreaks. But children's developing immune systems are more vulnerable than those of adults. "They end up sickening their kids," Jay-Russell adds.
"Harmful" is a meaningless term and contributes nothing to the discussion. Cars are harmful. Alcohol is harmful. Freedom is harmful. So what's your fucking point?
I bring up death because that's the canard trotted out by raw milk haters. And it doesn't happen with any appreciable frequency despite the large numbers of people consuming raw milk.
I'm not disagreeing that both raw and pasteurized milk can potentially cause serious illness, however I do not believe the numbers are large enough to be cause for concern or excessive regulation by control freaks who need to dictate what people put in their bodies. Perhaps you disagree and that's fine.
My fucking point is a very simple point about risk. There are no rewards to drinking raw milk, but there is high risk of significant harm.
The ratio of people drinking raw milk to suffering severe harm from it is much worse than for cars, alcohol, or freedom.
> control freaks who need to dictate what people put in their bodies.
Do you agree that parents should not feed their children a dangerous product that has no benefit? Or is that a bit of control freakery that you don't care about because bias?
You are being a troll. You don't know you're talking about [1]. You can do the math to figure out that you're wrong. I already have. If you can contribute anything remotely productive I will respond otherwise have fun building regulation castles in the sky.
No it's not obvious. That's the point. The CDC has admitted those deaths were caused by a product (queso fresco) that is commonly contaminated after production. There are ZERO deaths attributed to consuming raw liquid milk.
> such a small sample you can't deduce anything
Apparently all data from 1998-2011 on all reported illness and deaths from raw milk products is too small for Chicken Little.
And if this data set is too "small" why are the conclusions drawn by the CDC ("raw milk is deadly!") valid? Shouldn't the paucity of data preclude judgement one way or the other?