October 19, 2010 5:55 am at 5:55 am #592686
I’m posting this because I am curious to hear what others here think of the FDA’s belief that an individual has no “basic right” to their own bodily and physical health…
For the record, I don’t drink milk since I am allergic to it.
But this article in Time Magazine recently (Sep. 20) highlights a scary fact – that the FDA in it’s rebuttal to a lawsuit by “raw milk enthusiasts” (who are fighting back an FDA ban against raw milk) outrageously claims that:
There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food.”
“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.”
“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.”
I’m particularly curious what Charliehall and others who think that the govt agencies are always looking out for our best interest… I would really appreicate an honest and intelligent discourse on this. Especially within the context of an “individual’s right to their own bodily and physical health”.October 19, 2010 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm #702460
Oh Boy, I saw this debate years ago.
In short. The question here is whether milk must be pasteurized or not.
Prior to pasteurization, milk was not healthy. This lead to something called swill milk being served. It caused many deaths, especially amongst children. Laws followed, to improve the quality of the milk, and one of the laws was the need for pasteurization to maintain the health of the milk.
There are people now who believe that milk straight from the cow is healthier and better. and they want the laws forcing pasteurization to be changed.
Truth be told, IMHO the reward does not outweigh the risks. Kudos to the FDA on this oneOctober 19, 2010 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #702461
I’m a registered Republican. Not because I agree with everything they stand for (because I dont) but the main thing I agree with is Limited Government, once the Government starts interfering in our day to day lives the country is bound for hell in a handbag. The fundamental purpose of Government is the maintenance of basic security and public order. Most people are reasonable enough (and I say most because there are crazies out there) to submit themselves to some form of Government rather than complete Anarchy.
Once Government abuses their power and expands their role we run into problems, was this not the reason why we created this country in the first place?
Personally, I think this is all ridiculous – dont tell me what to eat, dont tell me who to love, dont tell me how to spend my money, dont tell me who to help out… There has to be a point where the Government is just the Government and they arent storming into our personal lives.October 19, 2010 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #702462chesednameParticipant
it’s an age old question.
do they have a right to make me wear a seat belt?
to tax cigarettes, a legal product through the roof? or soda for that matter?
do they have a right to make me pay for my employees health insurance?
the list goes on and on, and yet they don’t seem to realize that people shouldn’t have the right to do like gay marriages, and yet they do leave that for the public to decide, sick!October 19, 2010 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #702463
Raw (unpasteurized) milk is dangerous. There are other countries that ban it. Why a frum Jew would be arguing for the so-called right to do something that could amount to suicide is beyond me.October 19, 2010 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #702464
FrummyMcFrum – remember, it’s not the “old debate” in question, it’s a new development… whereas the FDA states (in court, and is trying to establish it as law), that “you don’t have the fundamental right to make decisions as relates to your bodily and physical health”… (etc.)October 19, 2010 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #702465
Charliehall: What do you think of the “real question” here: (Not going into the debate of raw milk.) namely, what about “giving up your fundamental right to make decisions as what to choose to eat, and making decisions regarding your bodily and physical health” etc.
Chesedname: This is by far not a comparison – because “taxing” a food, is not the same as “you cannot HAVE that food”…October 19, 2010 2:24 pm at 2:24 pm #702466oomisParticipant
Unpasteurized milk????? NO WAY. Louis Pasteur did us a great service back in the day. Some people really ARE too stupid for words. Enough with the back to nature. Maybe we should eat meat right after it is kashered, too, without cooking it. Oh wait, isn’t that steak tartare…? Improper preparation of food is responsible for food poisoning and much death, especially in children.October 19, 2010 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm #702467
If you want to commit suicide why should the Government stop you?
You are free to abuse your body in any way you deem fit.
The reason why agree with cigarette ban is because there is proven data that second hand smoke effects other people. I dont care if you want to kill yourself, but dont kill me in the process.October 19, 2010 3:20 pm at 3:20 pm #702468
Actually the data on second hand smoke are pretty weak regarding its association with cancer.
And how can you say we are are free to abuse our bodies in any way? It isn’t my body, it belongs to HaShem! We have banned some recreational drugs that are far less toxic than raw milk. Do you support legalizing marijuana and LSD?
I’m not aware of any such “fundamental right” either in Torah or secular law.October 19, 2010 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #702469mosheemes2Member
This isn’t all that complicated an issue. Milk is a product sold through interstate commerce, and as such, the Constitution explicitly gives the government the right to regulate it. If you believe that the Constitution means nothing more than it says (and most people on this site do feel that way, I believe), that’s really the end of the story.
You can argue if you’d like that there’s some right not written in the Constitution to eat whatever you’d like, but then I’d expect you to be much more sympathetic to those who argue for similar freedom to engage in medical procedures or marital relationships without government interference.
In any event, it’s not surprising that the FDA is arguing against the creation of that right in this instance, since regardless of what you think about raw milk, a court deciding that people have the Constitutional right to eat whatever they want would effectively put the FDA out of business.October 19, 2010 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #702470MoqMember
The question is where the line is; the Soviet Union defended innocent children by not letting their parents perform milah on them.
Where is the line? Con law is a hobby of mine, and the supreme court has been inconsistent on this issue. I mean, is suicide illegal(enforcement could be a tough one, though)?October 19, 2010 3:30 pm at 3:30 pm #702471
Jews arent the only people that live in America so all these laws dont ONLY affect us as Jews, I am referring to Americans at large.
Yes, I do think we should make drugs legal, tax the hell out of them and make serious penalties for offenders. If you can manage the problem that is half the battle, we are LOSING the war on drugs usage is rampant if we legalize it we can eliminate drug related gangs & violence.October 19, 2010 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm #702472
I think the government should allow people to ingest anything they want with the caveat that government sponsored health plans dont have to cover them if/when they become sick and that govt sponsored food plans dont have to cover their purchase.
You want to pour drayno onto your corn flakes, go ahead.October 19, 2010 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #702473
Would you also argue that any smoker who arrives at the hospital emergency room having a heart attack should not be admitted, because, after all, smoking causes heart attacks?October 19, 2010 4:15 pm at 4:15 pm #702474
Charlie. Did I say not admitted or not treated? I said not covered. In the case of cigarettes, the government charges a premium for the coverage in the form of taxes.October 19, 2010 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #702475
I agree with apy.
If you are being supported by the Government then (and only then) can they tell you what to do.
If you are on Food Stamps, then they can tell you how to spend them, if you are on Medicare/Medicaid then they can set the parameters how you will qualify, etc… Thats is why its called a Government Program, if its their game you have to play by their rules.
But, if I dont want to play with them, why are they making my rules?!October 19, 2010 4:41 pm at 4:41 pm #702476MoqMember
I think legalizing drugs would definetely solve the shidduch crisis. Only boys are dumb enough to do drugs, more guys OD, and viola, you’ve gotten an even number of boys and girls.
I think this is sacriledge’s real motivation.
speaking of ODing…October 19, 2010 4:42 pm at 4:42 pm #702477
This conversation has gone off the point of this case quite quickly.
The issue is not that the FDA is saying what one can eat and what one cannot eat. The issue is what the FDA allows to be SOLD. The issue here is that there are people who are angry that the FDA is preventing the sale of milk straight from the cow “as is”. They argue that their “right” to such milk is being taken away from them.
The FDA’s response is that a) they pasteurize the milk for good reason, and, b) availability of a specific food is not a right.
Laws are also specific to each state, but no state outlaws the DRINKING of such milk. Vermont, IIRC, allows it to be drunk only by the owners of the cows.
Using an extreme to put this into perspective. One can eat meat well past its sell date. One can also choose to eat rat meat. But the sale of rat meat and meat past its expiration date is what is forbidden.
Please look at the history behind non-pasteurized milk, swill milk, and deaths resulting from tainted milk pre-pasteurization prior to taking an anti-FDA side to this argument. They are truly protecting the public here, despite the whole-milk hippies objections.October 19, 2010 4:55 pm at 4:55 pm #702478
Maybe I just like getting high…October 19, 2010 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm #702479
Hmmm… most responses have veered off in a different direction than the question intended – So I will join (can’t fight ’em), and add this (quoting from Time Magazine article I read:)
Seems like the raw milk enthusiasts agree that typical dairy farms are not the place to get raw milk from (as they contain harmful pathogens…)
And for the record, I completely agree about if you’re going to do something risky – then you’ll have to pay for the end consequences (if there are any) – and that govt should not have to sponsor bad habits/vices etc.
BUT, having said that, government should have NO RIGHT to tell me what to eat, how to eat it etc. (Which is what the original thread is about.)
So I am overweight. Maybe the govt should have the right to ban me from buying any desserts?October 19, 2010 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #702480
FrummyMcFrum: ARE you aware that it IS legal in many states, for example California…?October 19, 2010 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #702481
Since the subject of cigarette smoking was raised, I have a few questions:
1. Since cigarette smoking is definitely bad for you, who decided that it is mutar to smoke?
2. Who gives the hashgacha on Marlboros?
3. For that matter, how are you allowed to smoke on Pesach when you have no idea what is in the cigarette?October 19, 2010 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #702482
It has been proven that trans fats are bad for you, do you eat margarine?October 19, 2010 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #702483
Charliehall: It is amazing to me how you wave off smoking (and harm of second-hand smoke) so quickly… as compared to the way you categorically “passel” raw milk as SUICIDAL when, clearly, studies and articles I’ve read shows the complete opposite(regarding smoking/second-hand smoke and now a little more in-depth regarding raw milk).
Remember – I’m not a raw-milk enthusiast AT ALL. I simply am SCARED how the govt/FDA keeps on creeping more and more into our lives – in places it should have NO business being. Under the pretense that they are absolutely 100% doing this “for our own good”. Thank you anyways – I will figure out what’s good for me.
That, and the ignorance of so many in the Jewish community regarding that fact. Saying “Amen” to whatever they serve up.October 19, 2010 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #702484
I am aware that it is legal in certain states. The FDA only controls interstate commerce.
One can also say that the death tolls will rise sharply should it become more readily available and more widely distributed.October 19, 2010 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #702485
Suggestions? “Awareness Campaigns”? SURE. No problem. Whether I agree or disagree with the issue.
But LEGISLATING our eating behavior if it harms no one? No way!October 19, 2010 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm #702486
trans fat isn’t an addictive killer.October 19, 2010 5:46 pm at 5:46 pm #702487
I’m not seeing the issue…maybe its because im an idiot, but lets take the other side of the FDA, the drug part. if lets say a revolutionary painkiller was released by pfizer which worked in 5 minutes for 10 hours, and was the strongest most effective OTC pain reliever on the market, it’s only downside being that after 10 doses, no matter the intervals, you WILL go into cardiac arrest, would anyone here object to the FDA banning that drug? i didn’t think so.
as for unpasteurized milk, i see no problem with the FDA’s position on the matter. it poses a public hazard especially for those who would buy it as a novelty item not knowing the risks inherent in the product. someone above touted a number, 49 people who become ill from unpasteurized milk per annum, and 0 fatalities. how may people who do not own the cow or know the person who owns the cow personally are drinking that kind of milk? please cite that statistic.
i have had unpasteurized milk, and it is quite tasty, however i knew the farmer personally, and the milk was delivered to me the day it was extracted (or so i was told). i was told when it was delivered that i am not to keep it for more than 48 hours. after 48 hours i MUST discard it as it is dangerous to keep raw milk past that point. now i ask you, how cost effective would that product be? suppose stores kept the milk for longer, you run serious risks if you buy it. many people do not know the risks.
as such i believe that the FDA must ban the product for the benefit of those who do not know the risks associated with raw milk and would buy it anyway because of it’s novelty or supposed health benefits.
they are NOT banning the consumption of raw milk, merely the selling of raw milk. your rights are not being trampled on, fear not.October 19, 2010 5:57 pm at 5:57 pm #702488
Maybe you should ask the members of OA if that is true…October 19, 2010 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #7024892qwertyParticipant
I dont mind them banning the sale of raw milk because we can still drink it if we wanted to by getting a cow.
What bothers me about FDA is that they will never review any natural cures (vitamins, herbs…etc) so are they really operating in our best interest? Or do they only care about the lobbyists from drug companies who pay them off?October 19, 2010 7:12 pm at 7:12 pm #702490
The FDA does not ban the ownership of a cow, milking it and drinking it. they would probably look the other way if you invited your friends and made a lchaim over the milk. just dont sell it on the open market, or open a speakeasy.
Where does this right to sell anything you want on the open market come from? Who guaranteed this right?October 19, 2010 7:15 pm at 7:15 pm #702491
The FDA does not have the statutory authority to review vitamins or food supplements for efficacy and has limited power over their safety. It would take an Act of Congress to change that. I’d be very happy to require clinical trials for labeling of vitamins. However, many of the very same drug companies you criticize actually manufacture vitamins and other food supplements as well; their lobbying has actually PREVENTED the kind of oversight you are suggesting.October 19, 2010 7:17 pm at 7:17 pm #702492
I’ve looked at the epidemiologic evidence on second hand smoke. The effects on cancer are weak. The effects on asthma exacerbations are very strong.
There is little contemporary epidemiologic evidence on unpasteurized milk because (1) it have been illegal in most of the US, and (2) few people have been stupid enough to want to consume a dangerous product when there is a perfectly safe competitor.October 19, 2010 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm #702493
The FDA is actually less intrusive today thanks to ill-considered pressure from the Republicans in Congress in the 1990s that made it easier to get drugs approved. As a result there have been some very high profile recalls of potentially dangerous drugs. This almost never happened back in the 1980s or before. The FDA is trying to do exactly what it is asked to do.October 19, 2010 7:21 pm at 7:21 pm #702494
Would you also support an end to government inspection of meat processors so that anyone could sell diseased meat? Or an end to government inspection of egg processors so that salmonella would be even more common?
Sorry, but the Free Market doesn’t protect public health. You don’t know whether the egg you eat is dangerous until you are dead.October 19, 2010 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm #702495Sean Ben NoachMember
I know the raw milk issue isn’t the main point of this thread, but I need to weigh in on this one since no one else is.
We used to live in Pennsylvania where raw milk is legally licensed. Our family would drink a couple gallons a week.
Yes, I agree with all of you that pasteurization is vitally important for commercial farming. But for a family farm, where the cows are completely grass fed, have plenty of room to graze and the farmer can take care of each cow, these farms sell raw milk which, in my opinion, is extremely beneficial as it has all the probiotics and enzymes still alive just as Hashem made it. A healthy cow that is taken care of produces healthy milk. If a cow gets mastitis the farmer lets the cow heal… I’ve been there, milked the cows myself and know how a GOOD farm operates. These families are in jeopardy and regularly are threatened by the FDA if they think any milk is going to people out of state, whether it’s true or not.
The FDA is making it more impossible for small businesses and small farms to survive with these regulations. It’s only big business that is winning on this. No one is forcing anyone to buy raw milk, it’s expensive anyway at around $6/gallon! You’re only going to buy raw milk if you feel passionately about it and it’s going to come from small family farms.
Have you seen the types of farms where “regular” milk comes from? I lived next to them and did photography for these farms on occasion (brochure work for farm equipment)… THAT is the truly scary milk, which I would never drink. The conditions the cows live in are unthinkable. Chicken houses are the same way if not worse, but that’s another topic! 🙂October 19, 2010 8:43 pm at 8:43 pm #702496
the FDA is not in the business of promoting small enterprises. they are in the business of keeping consumers safe when it comes to food and drug purchases. please dont make this into a social-economic issue.October 19, 2010 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #702497
Sean – $6/gallon is about the same price as Kosher (Cholov Yisroel) Milk.October 19, 2010 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #702498
I’m responding to you immediately before I read any other posts.
You asked if I eat margarine. Chas v’shalom! On the rare times when I want to spread something on toast, I use Benecol, Smart Balance or a similar item. Not only does Benecol not contain trans fats, it’s even good for you and it has an OU pareve designation.October 19, 2010 9:24 pm at 9:24 pm #702499popa_bar_abbaParticipant
I once drank unpasteurized and non-homogenized milk a few minutes out of the cow. it was delicious.
(posted because I’d rather do this than what I’m supposed to be doing right now)October 19, 2010 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm #702500
bombmaniac: Do you really believe that their intentions are pure, their actions untainted?
How about this: A mea culpa from the FDA just a few days old… that they allowed themselves to be influenced by lobbyists… as via AP.
(USAToday, Oct. 14) “Almost two years ago, the Food and Drug Administration ignored the advice of its scientists and approved a knee implant after being lobbied by members of Congress. On Thursday, the agency issued an unprecedented “mea culpa,” saying the device should not have been approved.
THAT’S my beef: that so many of us, in the Jewish community, believe “b’emunah shleimah” that what the regulatory agencies say is true. And just.
So while they are out there “doing their job”, I ask all of us to use our g-d given sechel and not trust blindly… that everything they do is for our own good. When relevant and important to your individual rights, health etc. – get informed.
(Same with the CDC, btw.)October 19, 2010 10:41 pm at 10:41 pm #702501
bombmaniac: Do you really believe that their intentions are pure, their actions untainted?
that is absolutely irrelevant.
vnishmartemmeod: you are blowing a very simple issue out of proportion.October 19, 2010 11:10 pm at 11:10 pm #702502
You’ve never eaten a bakery item or bought/baked cookies with margarine?
…I find that hard to believe.October 20, 2010 12:38 am at 12:38 am #702503October 20, 2010 12:54 am at 12:54 am #702504basmelechParticipant
Many people in the alternative health field believe (rightfully so) that raw unpasteurized, non-homogenized milk is a beneficial food and pasteurized homogenized milk is not good for you. I am of the same belief and I grew up drinking such milk as a child, and even now I also acquire such milk from time to time.It tastes very good and as long as the cows it comes from are healthy the milk is a very healthful product.October 20, 2010 2:30 am at 2:30 am #702505
Can someone explain the difference in taste, and nutrients, between unpasteurized/non-homogenized milk and pasteurized/homogenized milk?October 20, 2010 2:38 am at 2:38 am #702506
Not for the past five years. Next question?October 20, 2010 2:50 am at 2:50 am #702507ronrsrMember
My municipality does not allow me to keep a cow on my property.October 20, 2010 3:37 am at 3:37 am #702508
My municipality does not allow me to keep a cow on my property.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.