amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
When is/isn’t regulatory authority arbitrary?
Feds vs Farmer
- Thread starter Hygro
- Start date
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
it's a good question. closest time is when it prevents people from constraining others' freedoms/rights. regulations against fraud (both product and financials), requirements to disclose meaningful properties of the product (aka feds would have airtight case if farmer didn't disclose risks or outright claimed it was completely safe), this sort of stuff that you need to have confidence an transactions and not let one person's autonomy remove that of others.
cynically, another example of non-arbitrary regulation is when it's specifically designed to extract as much wealth for the regulating body as possible. that's not a *good* reason per se', but it's not an arbitrary one either. i don't think this case is an example of optimizing for that, though.
probably some others i'm missing too. not all laws are bad, but we probably are in the "more laws = less justice" territory right now, at least broadly.
Buying a tool with a sharp edge is not the same as buying bad bacteria laden meat, dairy and veggies. With the latter there is no informed choice.
Last edited:
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
https://amosmillerorganicfarm.com/a-little-about-raw-milk/
They (not just this farm, but the raw foods people in general) make unsubstantiated and misleading health claims all the time.
FriendlyFire
Codex WMDicanious
Eating wild bats NEVER hurt anyone. j/k
Slap on a warning label and let people whom want to take their chances with raw milk to go ahead. Generally a few thousand people get sick every year, with the occasional death
The difference is upstream producer error vs. downstream user error.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
if it's actually fraud, go after them for fraud. not this nonsense.
according to the article linked, there was apparently hard evidence of informed consent though.
there is no difference, it's downstream in each case, unless what the customers signed to get is not what they received.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
The raw foods people are nuts, but for the love of God, let them drink the raw milk. All the hobbies they'll pick up if you meddle it out of their hands out of sheer officious boredom... will be worse.
Make it something you have to go out of the way to buy. Like don't stock it with the normal person food in the isles.
Make it something you have to go out of the way to buy. Like don't stock it with the normal person food in the isles.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
That’s right, if I can’t drink raw milk I’m definitely gonna do something weird 
Lexicus
Deity
p r o - l i f e
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
The way this is written - "genetically similar" a truck could be driven through that hole. That text alone provides no evidence, and constitutes no claim to evidence, whatsoever that this bacteria allegedly identified in milk samples was indeed the source of the bacteria affecting those individuals. It will take a careful examination in court to check that out, and actual evidence.
In my experience authorities lie as much as they can get away with, if it's about protecting their feuds. And the purpose of food regulations and its very selective enforcement is now mainly to protect large monopolies, not for public safety. The fault I can find in that farmer, if the description, is not cooperating with an investigation into that alleged incident. If.
And in fact you should carefully re-read the text you posted. After the court forced the required inspection, the farmer was charged with "FSIS cited Miller’s with FMIA and PPIA misbranding and other violations,". Absent there is any charge of milk contamination by Listeria, it would not have been shoved into "other violations" would it? IF that had been found it would take pride of place among the charges.
It looks very much as an excuse for a fishing expedition seeking any violations that could make some charges stick. Bureaucratic persecution. Got to shut down small producers lest more people get ideas?
The CDC piece is very much in line with the quality (lack of it) seen from the CDC in everything covid related more recently. It proves nothing and makes no actual strong claim in the text that might allow the writers to be charged with manufacturing false accusations. It uses weasel worlds such as "likely" (how likely?). It's a piece of bureaucratic propaganda that ought to shame any real scientist still employed with the CDC. The sole basis for the accusation is a sample "closely related genetically". How closely? Where is the data? The CDC piece merely says that information was provided by the FDA, which had its own fight going against this farmer and failed to nail him on the court case, as far I can tell, other this bacteria at least. The event being investigated was in 2014, how was the milk sample sourced and when?
I believe in due process when destroying someones' living. Do you? None of us know the details just from this public information, but it's easy for me to see that there is a power inbalance between regulators and farmer (as it should, but keep that fact in mind when looking at this case) and that the regulators are after him since at least 2016 trying to find something to shut him down which might stick. That they have failed so far makes me suspicious of their acts.
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
Didn't you read the top line where they filed a civil suit? The idea that there is no due process here is simply wrong. If you want to know about the evidence against them, go to the court filings and don't look for it in a press release.
EnglishEdward
Deity
The story is that the late Queen Mother used to drink unpasteurised milk and she lived to be 101.
amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
Someone needs to explain to me how the costs of heating up milk and then cooling it down before sale are so prohibitive that the big dairy concerns have no alternative but to coopt federal regulators because I’m not seeing it.
If you do not need to pasteurize milk it needs no processing, so every dairy could sell it in churns to anyone, and this was how it used to work and people near by could get their milk within an hour or so of it being in the cow. If pasteurization is compulsory, it has to go via some central facility which inherently centralises the market.
Bamspeedy
CheeseBob
Daily smoker lived to 114. Exceptions don't prove anything.
https://www.newsweek.com/worlds-oldest-man-guinness-world-record-smoking-tobacco-fredie-blom-947687
Its still legal in England and Wales if you buy it direct from the farmer, not in Scotland.
Unpasteurised milk spoils quicker, may contain E Coli and other bacteria, but also contains enzymes, proteins and antibodies that don't survive the pasteurisation process.
It also tastes loads better, but that may well be because you can get it when it is hours old rather than days.
Depends what you're used to. I usually drink skimmed so it is much too rich for me.
Similar threads
