Karl`s PC Help Forums Last active: Never
Not logged in [Login ]
Go To Bottom

In memory of Karl Davis, founder of this board, who made his final journey 12th June 2007

Post Reply
Who Can Post? All users can post new topics and all users can reply.
Username   Need to register?
Password:   Forgot password?
Subject: (optional)
Icon: [*]
Formatting Mode:
Normal
Advanced
Help

Insert Bold text Insert Italicised text Insert Underlined text Insert Centered text Insert a Hyperlink Insert E-mail Hyperlink Insert an Image Insert Code Formatted text Insert Quoted text Insert List
Message:
HTML is Off
Smilies are On
BB Code is On
[img] Code is On
:) :( :D ;)
:cool: :o shocked_yellow :P
confused2 smokin: waveysmiley waggyfinger
brshteeth nananana lips_sealed kewl_glasses
Show All Smilies

Disable Smilies?
Use signature?
Turn BBCode off?
Receive email on reply?
The file size of the attachment must be under 200K.
Do not preview if you have attached an image.
Attachment:
    

Topic Review
Quaver

[*] posted on 19-8-2015 at 10:35
I am willing to pay extra:)
I'm into soy milk nowadays though. I'd pay extra for that too if it helps the farmers.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 19-8-2015 at 02:38
Strangely enough, the human race has managed to survive many millennia without all of these past your eyes, homo gene eyes, up your rectum stuff they use these days which are "good" for us.
delanti

[*] posted on 18-8-2015 at 15:21
Raised on cows milk and churned butter. I guess we were just lucky Leigh.waveysmiley
LSemmens

[*] posted on 14-8-2015 at 13:46
Fair enough. I am aware of those issues and, for the uninformed masses, yes, that should be the case. For those of us who have experienced the taste of "raw" milk, nothing can beat it! I used to enjoy breaking through the cream on the top to get to the liquid. I also prefer real butter, too. The stuff they sell these days is tasteless.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 14-8-2015 at 02:19
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
rife in days of yore are almost non existant now.


Milk and milk products are in special category re protecting the public health. And 'milk' also includes milk from dairy cows, goats, and sheep.

The reality is that milk consumers include a very large percentage of children. Children, without equivocation, scientifically speaking have incomplete immune systems. They are, as a group, much more susceptible to developing disastrous life threatening illnesses (that can rapidly develop) as a result of the many forms of pathogens (like salmonella) that can occur in the food supply of what we in the USA label "food borne illness".

One of the major govt agencies in the USA for monitoring the food supply in all its forms is the federal Food & Drug Agency (FDA); another major govt agency is the Center For Disease Control (CDC) The FDA publishes a consumer based email whenever a recall of contaminated food occurs, etc.,. This list/email typically, on a day in-day out basis, has at least one per day recall notice.

Unpasteurized milk is typically categorized as 'raw milk'. And from time to time unpasteurized milk is recalled, i. e., it may be infrequent but it certainly is not rare.

The reality is that the vast majority of contaminated food is not detected because most victims have temporary "mild" symptoms that do not require hospitalization.

From the CDC website, "CDC estimates that each year roughly 1 in 6 Americans (or 48 million people) get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die of foodborne diseases."

There is most certainly an unknown number of Americans that will only consume raw milk. They seem to be part of the organic food consumer group. But IMO, you are really rolling the dice to drink unpasteurized milk.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 14-8-2015 at 01:21
Yes, I am aware of the regulations regarding the "safety" of the product. As the farms are as closely monitored as the rest of the "chain" why can't they sell the milk direct. As for pasteurisation, personally, that should be a personal choice as most of the diseases that were rife in days of yore are almost non existant now.
JackInCT

[*] posted on 13-8-2015 at 13:12
Quote:
Originally posted by LSemmens
I would, but I'd rather purchase it straight from the farmer, but that is illegal. Try and work that one out.


It would seem to me that would greatly depend on one's personal view of pasteurization (whether it should be mandatory, etc.,) as well as the frequency that the cows are tested for tuberculosis.

In theory a large chain would have its own internal resources to monitor the health of the herd(s), sanitary conditions in the barn, etc., as well as the milk itself (its own laboratory system to test the milk).

Milk has a long established 'chain of custody' set of regulations (such as temp control [from storage at the farm, the tanker transport vehicles,] etc.). Consumers are at the mercy of the public health system agencies that all the regs are ongoing monitored/followed and when appropriate, the authority to act quickly to shut down a farm.
John_Little

[*] posted on 13-8-2015 at 08:24
I think I could be tempted. Its only an extra 10p. But there are farmers and farmers. Some of them are not so badly off.
LSemmens

[*] posted on 13-8-2015 at 06:15
I would, but I'd rather purchase it straight from the farmer, but that is illegal. Try and work that one out.
marymary100

[*] posted on 12-8-2015 at 17:47
There is a campaign here at the moment where farmers are going in to supermarkets to buy up all the milk then giving it away to shoppers.

This counter-intuitive move was to draw attention to the very low prices supermarkets pay farmers for milk. It works out at less per litre than water which is bottled.

One supermarket is going to have a "Farmers' brand" label which will pay/charge 10p per litre more than the regular low price.

Would you be willing to pay more for your milk in order to keep farmers employed in dairy farming?

Why/why not?