RE: Food safety ? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 7:42:46 PM)

[;)]



DomKen -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 8:04:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kalikshama

quote:

Happy now?


Yes! The problem was lack of refrigeration, improper feed, and corruption by the milk producers and city officials.

The problem then and sometimes now was improper sanitation. Sometimes the raw milk simply has disease causing organisms in it no matter how clean you keep the milking equipment.

Maybe you missed the link Tazzy put up earlier
http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/12/health/food-poisoning-protection-guide/index.html



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 10:55:07 PM)

I bet a buck that you wash your hands almost every time you touch a doorknob in a public building. I will further wager that we DO understand one another and we simply do not agree. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong.

But here's a thorn forya ; If all these regulations and everything are necessary for human life, that they are essential, how did we get here ? There has been a dairy industry for a long time, and when they sold milk it was pasteurized and if people wanted raw milk they had to go to the farm. What was wrong with that ? Like a horse, get a saddle or ride bareback. That is supposed to be your choice.

But before that there was no pasteurization at all. X amount of people got sick, those who survived had a better adapted immune system if you believe Darwin, or a few others.

If we can't survive without all this technology, how the fuck did people survive without it ?

I am really tempted to delete this.

T^T



tazzygirl -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 11:01:14 PM)

Why do you want to delete it?


quote:

If we can't survive without all this technology, how the fuck did people survive without it ?


Not very well. Longevity has increased over the years.

Evidence-based studies indicate that longevity is based on two major factors, genetics and lifestyle choices.[5] Twin studies have estimated that approximately 20-30% of an individual’s lifespan is related to genetics, the rest is due to individual behaviors and environmental factors which can be modified.[6]In addition, it found that lifestyle plays almost no factor in health and longevity after the age of 80, and that almost everything in advanced age is due to genetic factors.

In preindustrial times, deaths at young and middle age were common, and lifespans over 70 years were comparatively rare. This is not due to genetics, but because of environmental factors such as disease, accidents, and malnutrition, especially since the former were not generally treatable with pre-20th century medicine. Deaths from childbirth were common in women, and many children did not live past infancy. In addition, most people who did attain old age were likely to die quickly from the above-mentioned untreatable health problems. Despite this, we do find numerous examples of pre-20th century individuals attaining lifespans of 75 years or greater, including Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Cato the Elder, Thomas Hobbes, and Michaelangelo.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longevity#Present_life_expectancy



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 11:24:19 PM)

"These people had lawyers of their own, pros of their own."

Who were fucking incompetent.

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 11:34:01 PM)

l



tazzygirl -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 11:42:11 PM)

As many, percentage wise, as today?

More babies, percentage wise, live. Even that one fact leads to increased longevity as a people.

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis

You might brush up on his hand washing discovery.



rulemylife -> RE: Food safety ? (11/25/2011 11:47:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

All these regulations for food safety and it doesn't work, or does it ? If I choose to take the risk of drinking lemonade from some kid's stand in the summer, I guess I need to be protected from myself.

If I want raw milk I have to buy it like a bag of weed, even farmers can't just sell it to me. Oh in some states they can, but only for my pets. Does that make it illegal for me to drink it ? It must right ? So then those old people living on cat food must starve to death - by law.

Go ahead and kill the messnger but :

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1470

is a story about the Bledsoes, a couple who farm organically and were to have a big feast. It was public knowledge that all the food was grown on their farm and some on a couple of others, all organically I presume. As if that matters. A petty harrassment officer was sent to protect and serve, and ordered them to destroy all the food.

"Mrs. Bledsoe then informed the inspector: “We have a big family gathering tomorrow. Can I at least save it for that?” Ms. Oaks said that would not be acceptable. Mrs. Bledsoe then told Ms. Oaks that their farm was fully sustainable and that everything they didn’t use would be fed to their animals or added to the compost pile.

“At least let me feed it to my pigs,” she implored. Ms. Oaks made a phone call to her supervisor, but again the answer was, “No.”"

That is from the AFP article on the story and it is shorter than this other one.

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/quail-hollow-farm-dinner.htm

Inspector Oaks apparently did finally bring in the cops, but it didn't quite go her way. The cops refused to issue a citation, asking exactly on what law would it be based. The Bledsoes I think asked that as well and I don't think there will be further problems.

This because the next time the inspector will be asked to produce a warrant or leave the property.

What does this mean to me ? I am not a farmer. It means to me that people have been cowed. Sheeplised. I would never have even thought of a permit they made her get. I would say "I don't need a permit". If they could prove by law that I needed one the event would have been over by the time they did it.

I can't believe what people have become. I remember keg parties, you chip in and there could be 100 people there. Same way with pig roasts. The pig was running around a few hours ago, there is no USDA stamp on it.

Those regulations are indeed there to serve and protect. Just not us.

T^T


The key words you are missing is that the "guests" paid.

That makes the event subject to regulation.

In other words, they were customers not guests.









Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:11:17 AM)

Ever have a keg party ?

Ever have a pig roast ?

All through Ohio tis used to go on. From North Royalton to Lodi Man, from Sandusky to Elyria. All su8mmer long these people worked all winter and YES some milked. Others raised the pigs, yet other grew the veggies. Sure they bought a few things especially for the homade wine.

The government has no fucking business in this shit. You go to a public place they do, you go to a private place they do not. If it is not that simple it wll be so complex that none wil ever understand it. You should know that by now just by watching how the governemnt acts. You have to STOP them from getting more power, not fucking give it to them.

One of the main reasons for that it that you can't get it back. Your rights, your freedom to assemble and plot ot alter or abolish this government, to bear arms incase said government gets out of line. you give that up you CANNOT get it back. Ask the people in England, and alot of other countries. That guy in India, someonme here knows his name.

Remain stupid and perish.

T^T



rulemylife -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:19:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

No matter what it is you are in favor of the rules and regulations. Leave the people alone dammit. If a few die so what?


That pretty much sums up this ridiculous thread.

Who gives a shit if some child dies as long as you can spout libertarian principles about leaving the people alone.



rulemylife -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:22:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

Ever have a keg party ?

Ever have a pig roast ?

All through Ohio tis used to go on. From North Royalton to Lodi Man, from Sandusky to Elyria. All su8mmer long these people worked all winter and YES some milked. Others raised the pigs, yet other grew the veggies. Sure they bought a few things especially for the homade wine.

The government has no fucking business in this shit. You go to a public place they do, you go to a private place they do not. If it is not that simple it wll be so complex that none wil ever understand it. You should know that by now just by watching how the governemnt acts. You have to STOP them from getting more power, not fucking give it to them.

One of the main reasons for that it that you can't get it back. Your rights, your freedom to assemble and plot ot alter or abolish this government, to bear arms incase said government gets out of line. you give that up you CANNOT get it back. Ask the people in England, and alot of other countries. That guy in India, someonme here knows his name.

Remain stupid and perish.

T^T


Again, by your own links this was not a private party, it was an event that customers paid to attend.

That was what made it subject to regulation.






gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:23:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
Denying summary judgment means that they must proceed to trial and prove their case. Based on the little information you provided, the Plaintiff's are lucky the court didn't dismiss their claim entirely and instead are giving them a chance to actually make a legitimate legal argument.


This.  The trial hasn't happened yet.  Asking for a "summary judgement" just means the Plaintiffs thought their argument was so obviously correct that the judge would be willing to bypass the trial altogether and go directly to the ruling.  He wasn't, which was why he denied them the summary judgement.  (He did not dismiss the case and deny them a trial.)  The judge explains that decision by saying the Plaintiffs' argument was underdeveloped and failed to prove that they had an inherent right to consume the milk from their animals.  This should not be taken to mean that the court thinks they have no such right.  It only means, the court thinks they failed to make a convincing argument for it prior to the actual trial.  Specifically, the judge said that the arguments made by the Plaintiffs were irrelevant to what they were trying to prove.  He also said that the arguments on both sides of the question were underdeveloped.  Thus both sides will have an opportunity to develop their arguments more fully, and present them at trial.   There has been no ruling on this matter yet.  Denying a summary judgement is not the same thing as dismissing the case, and it is not the same thing as issuing a ruling on the case.  The case is still pending trial.

In the other case (Wickard v. Filburn), the court ruled that the government could regulate how much wheat the farmer could grow for his own use because they felt that it was affecting interstate commerce.  i doubt interstate commerce will be an issue in these new cases.

pam



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:32:13 AM)

"Who gives a shit if some child dies as long as you can spout libertarian principles about leaving the people alone."

Let me ask you something MF. Did I ask you to eat unsanctified meat, to drink un deskankified milk or avoid vaccinations ? Did I tell you that you must avoid this shit period, and that you have no fucking choice ?

If a few of yours die so what, you deal with it. If a few of mine die that is none of your business.

You live your life your way and I'll take care of me. And if you are worried about my kids or something, what the fuck for ? Worry about your own asshole. Fucking if someone chooses to live a lifestyle different thant you that is not OK ?

HELLO, SMILE YOU ARE ON CM NOW.

So we can play with torches and chainsaws, tear gas and shit, knives and needles, but we can't decide for ourselves what to eat.

Go with Domken.

T^T

.



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:49:52 AM)

quote:

This. The trial hasn't happened yet. Asking for a "summary judgement" just means the Plaintiffs thought their argument was so obviously correct that the judge would be willing to bypass the trial altogether and go directly to the ruling.


Every time anyone tries to get a law nullified or disprove jurisdiction the first hearing goes for this. Most likely the other side would have a similar brief and ask for a summary judgement in their favor. But that's not the best strategy. The lawyers who gain by the defendants winning gain by the status quo, and will be well heeled.

As such they will drag it through court as long as they can. This has nothing to do with the Bledsoes BTW. The milk thing is still fundamental to alot of this.

Do we have the right to control what goes into our own bodies ? That doesn't just mean by exclusion, but by inclusion. If that is not a fundamental right what is ?

There are tenets of law that are considered to be so obvious that they were not included in the Constitution, those who wrote it really fucked up in not figuring just how fucking stoooooooopid people could get.

T^T



gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:57:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
I think the government displayed a disgusting double standard here.  Restaurants operate under exactly the same laws, and i have yet to see the health department walk in to any restaurant and subject their food to the same level of scrutiny, or expect them to prove the origin of each cut tomato.


In a way we do have to account for where every tomato comes from.  It is all by using HACCP trained suppliers.

I would love it if I could go to Kroger and get berries when they are on sale or something like that, but there has to be an invoice showing that everything comes from an approved source.

I'm a cafeteria manager for a school, but, since the Serv Safe requirements became nationwide, I believe it is the same across the board for any food services operation.


i don't know if the standards more rigorous for school cafeterias, but i've been working in restaurants forever, and i have never seen the Health Department (or anyone else) demand that a restaurant prove the provinance of its food, and much less order it to throw out its tomatoes by stating that, being out of their packaging and cut, it was impossible to prove their origin.  i've also seen restaurants get their ingredients from all kinds of sources, including private farms and farmer's markets.

pam



rulemylife -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 12:59:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ishtarr

If that's the case, then why was it explicitly ruled that the plaintiffs -the FARMERS- weren't allowed to use the milk for their OWN consumption.
The judge literally told them that they -or anybody else- where not allowed to grow and raise food for they OWN consumption if it didn't comply with the laws for food meant for consumers.

The original judgment can be read in full here: http://www.thecompletepatient.com/storage/WIorder-clarification9-11.pdf


Did you manage to read your own link?

The court ruled that it was a commercial dairy farm.

Commercial being the operative word.



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 1:02:37 AM)

"i don't know if the standards more rigorous for school cafeterias"

I'd imagine they are, more fat, calories and sugar. They are younger so they won't die on our watch.

T^T



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 1:04:23 AM)

quote:

Commercial being the operative word.


Did they have somethig for sale to the public or not ?

T^T



gungadin09 -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 1:07:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife
The court ruled that it was a commercial dairy farm.

Commercial being the operative word.


Actually, what the court did is deny the farmers a summary judgement in the case.  The case is still pending trial.

pam



Termyn8or -> RE: Food safety ? (11/26/2011 1:08:10 AM)

quote:

i've also seen restaurants get their ingredients from all kinds of sources, including private farms and farmer's markets.


I've known hillbillies who dragged a deer into a butcher and then went to the bar, made a deal with the owner to have a venison night. I guess they could all be in the federal pen by now.

Criminals, and proud of it.

T^T



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875