Should raw milk be illegal?

In My Humble Opinion
201

The standards for libel are generally pretty strict. Just saying someone is a quack who probably talks to Elvis or whatever doesn’t count. First, you have to prove it’s false. You also have to prove that it caused harm (and not just hurting their feelings or annoying them) or that it was made without adequate and thorough research. And it usually has to be something pretty specific and detailed, IIRC. Making a general statement that nutritionists are peddling woo isn’t libel. Stating such and such woo is a child molestor who rapes his kids is libel. See the difference. Even then, defamation suits tend to be hard to win, especially in the case of celebrities – which may be in this case.

You may not LIKE hearing “your” authors talked about this way, but that does not make it libel or slander.

Yeah, it’s just wiki, but opinion is not subject to libel (that so and so is a nutball), or vulgar insults (calling someone an asshole), what’s called a “fair comment” etc. I’m ALSO guessing you’d have to say it about someone in particular, not just a general group of people. (If I say that Holocaust deniers are evil and not to be trusted, I can’t be sued for libel, for example)

In other words, you wouldn’t have a prayer of winning, or even of having the suit approved. The only lawyer who’d touch it would be some sleazy ambulance chaser (oh no, I defamed somebody else!)

No. Mind describing it for us? :dubious: Please be specific and cite cases.

Seriously dude, you need to CHILLAX. You seem very easily agitated. And no, I’m not speaking from “arrogance” – that’s simply the impression you’re giving me. If I’m wrong, you need to explain why.

202

First paragraph: I refer your stupid question to Al Jaffee, and await his snappy answer. :stuck_out_tongue:

Second paragraph: Whoopee. :rolleyes:

203

Why is it a stupoid question? Your position is that established expertise is immaterial. The book by self-declared nutritionist is to be held as valid a source, or more, than the expert body’s evaluation of all the evidence. You question why one should hold one source of information as more trustworthy than another. You wonder why one should hold information garnered from random nutritionist written books with some skepticism and hold information from expert bodies with a bit less (but not zero) doubt. Yet you seem reluctant to go to any random off the shelf self-described nutritionist for your care and hold the advice of your physician with some regard, and by extension the person who (s)he refers you to.

I am not getting the disconnect. Please explain it.

Whoopee and evidence for the truth of my statement. These are underwear on the outside people. Maybe they are not nuts and they only wear their underwear there because that is what sells … I think that is what happened to Dr. Oz … but that is where it is. And that is what sells so that is what is on the shelf, especially in a health food store demographic where the woo-leaning tend to be over-represented.

204

Describe Belli’s book? Gladly. Referring specifically to the subject at hand:
“If you could descend to such unthinkable and un-Christian depths as to call a clergyman a drunkard, you might be required to prove what brand of stimulant he was addicted to, or you might find yourself in the position of making an unwilling contribution to his church.
“Similarly, to refer to your physician as ‘Old Dr. Quack,’ except as a term of endearment, is neither nice nor legal. You also commit actionable slander if you aver that ‘he bought his diploma for $50,’—if, as a matter of fact, he paid nothing at all. Equally bad, legally, is to call him a ‘butcher,’ or to say that he ‘puts enough poison in his pills to kill six men.’ The courts have said so.
“To say that a milkman ‘visits the town pump with his milk’* [defrauding his customers by selling watered-down milk—D.M.]* or that a merchant ‘can’t pay his debts’ likewise may get you haled into court. Even to stand before a surrealist work of art and say ‘That artist must be crazy!’ can be slanderous. …
“In 1916 a very flippant writer in the state of Washington did not believe the story about a man and a cherry tree, the man for whom the state was named.* The writer said that, and a great deal more. A patriotic district attorney had the writer indicted for criminal libel [my emphasis—D. M.], and he was convicted by an equally patriotic jury. The Supreme Court of Washington affirmed the conviction for libeling George Washington, and the depreciator of the cherry tree story was sent to jail!” [footnote 2, referring to *State v. Haffer, *94 Wash. 136, 162 P. 45 L.R.A. 610 (1917).] Ready for the Plaintiff!, Charter Edition, 1963, Chapter 14, “My Client, of Impeccable Character—”, pp. 157, 159.
*I don’t believe that story myself, but that’s not the topic here.

205

First paragraph:
The question is stupid because I have already told you–at least once–that I have no familiarity with the authors of nutrition books and just happen to know the names Carlton Fredericks and Adelle Davis because I had their books. (Well, I still have Fredericks’, but mostly it’s just sat on my bookshelf, unread, for 40 years.) There is no way I will give such a person priority above a licensed physician, especially one who has earned my thanks and respect (treating a painful ear infection, for example). I have too much regard for the medical profession to allow a non-doctor to overrule a doctor’s counsel.

As for your second paragraph, I see your point, which seems to be: De gustibus non est disputandum. Hey, I already found THAT out concerning movies, but the unfortunate part there seems to lie with the audience, not the people producing for them. Maybe the same rule holds with books…

206

Just to nitpick, first you have to show that the defendant made a statement of fact, not opinion. Then, you have to show that the statement of fact was false.

I wouldn’t rely on a single word of it for an accurate understanding of modern American defamation law.

207

Raw milk being illegal is one of the most ridiculous things of all time. I have the full cream raw milk regularly, and if I was forced to consume the pasteurized sh*t stuff, I’d stop having milk.

208

That’s your problem. I have lived in California for 60 years and Mr. Belli was one of the foremost tort attorneys in the state’s history. And as a paralegal and a researcher I have access to all California defamation law (I took a course on it as part of my major) and I am not quick to reject it as you are.

But while you’re on the subject, why don’t you show me something from California law to support your side of the matter, instead of rejecting Mr. Belli’s statements out of hand?

209

Eh, I guess that doesn’t help much when talking to those who can easily just scream “conspiracy” when confronted with such large reviews. But thanks anyways.

…Are you fucking serious?

What, you mean the generalization that “nutritionists” (a non-restricted term) publishing their “research” in the tabloid press (rather than peer-reviewed scientific journals) are generally full of shit? They are! Otherwise they wouldn’t be nutritionists but would be dietitians publishing in the peer-reviewed journals! Look, to people who know what they’re talking about, seeing someone with a book published on medicine, nutrition, or whatever, but no published papers on the subject is akin to seeing someone wearing their underwear both outside of their pants and on their head (two pairs at the same time) - they look utterly incredible and full of shit. Because experience tells us that’s what’s happening here.

No, nobody said that, and this sort of defensive posturing is typical of those who realize they’re losing ground. Try again, why don’t you.

Of course, once again, nobody said that. Ever. Nor implied it, nor hinted at it, nor is that even a slippery slope or a coherent hyperbole. Why would you even say something like that?

Also worth noting: people who “choose to become nutritionists” in Arizona, Colorado, Michigan and New Jersey do exactly one thing: put the title in front of their names on their business cards. That is literally all they have to do. And then they have absolutely no problem selling books (which are then shipped nationally and internationally) from there with that title. And of course, it doesn’t matter if the books are full of crap, because the laws on the books favor cranks and quacks to the extent that people could die taking your medicine and it’d be nearly impossible to nail you (they’ve just now arrested Robert O. Young, whose quack therapies have lead to the premature death of god knows how many people who bought into it!).

Yes, I am mad. Why do you ask?

Yes, of course, because your personal tastes (overstated in the extreme) trump the safety of the rest of us from infectious disease outbreaks, as well as your own personal safety. :rolleyes: “Ridiculous”. Are you even aware of the risks?

210

Then why did you enter this thread quoting one of them as a source of otherwise uncited and unconfirmed information that you at least seemed to trust over the licensed physicians and more so experts in the field of the CDC and the FDA and wh have written peer reviewed journal articles (which seems perhaps to be a stronger qualification than having treated your painful ear infection)? So much so that you reacted to those questioning the qualifications of and the misinformation promoted by such people with great hostility and attempts at sarcasm?

211

That’s nice. You’ve been informed of the increased risks and choose to engage because you believe it tastes that much better. I for one have no problem with that. Are you feeding it to or selling it to children or others who are either not fully aware of the increased risk or capable of informed consent to the increased health risk they are taking? That would be the part that would be very very wrong: Here kids, smoke this, I like it!

212

Actual quote dougie was responding to:

So DSeid didn’t say “all” nutritionists, he said “more often than not”.

Gee, I hope DSeid doesn’t print off your post and show it to his lawyer! This could get ugly.

Seriously, chill. And we have figured out that your “objective” is to find people who will validate your nutritional beliefs, and that educating yourself by consulting reliable sources is not your goal. That’s your privilege, but you’re not going to learn that way.

213

I should point out that, without a qualifying adverb, the generalization is implied. “Teenagers dress in sloppy clothes” is equivalent to "All teenagers dress in sloppy clothes." Or “Kids are silly” deepns into “All kids are silly.” See what I mean?

214

You mean without the qualifying adverb that was there? Don’t worry, I won’t sue.

This has long gone past silly, but for (and sorry for the vulgar language) shits and giggles let’s play this bit out.

Let us imagine that you, dougie, state: “Most pathologists are highly intelligent social inepts with Asperger’s who prefer labs to dealing with people.” Can Jackmannii, a pathologist, sue you for libel and win? Can anyone or any organization?

Let’s get past the first test and assume that he is a pathologist who does not have Asperger’s. I suppose some exist. :slight_smile: Let us even assume that the qualifier “most” is even incorrect … it’s just a large fraction but less than 50%.

Can he sue you now?

Or does libel require a specific person being named, a specific false statement of fact, that statement causing specific harm to that specific person, and an intent to cause harm if the plaintiff is a public figure?

Answer:

And of course in the case of my comment I am protected by the fact that my statement is, not only to my knowledge true, but in fact, is. No, the meaning was not that these authors all literally wear their underwear on the outside of their pants. The clear meaning is that their nutritional advice is crazy, analagous to that sort of behavior. And again, a short perusal of typical titles for sale in health food stores verfies that truth. We have as evidence just the fact that 100% of the ones that you have on your shelf give crazy and potentially dangerous advice. Others? The pH Miracle. The China Study. (All animal protein is toxic documented by misrepresenting his own research.) The blood type diet plan. Grain Brain. (All grains cause harm to your brain … written by a neurologist no less, proving that MDs can be woomeisters too.) The Candida diet. The non-entity of candida overgrowth causes all ills and can be cure with special diets. The Apple Cider Vinegar handbook. Drinking apple cider vinegar will do everything from cure your diabetes to your warts. It says so on the cover. And on and on. Oh I am sure there is one or two books for sale in those stores that are not selling snake oil and misinformation, maybe even a few … but most are of this ilk. Your bookshelf selections are representative.

215

Nitpick: Jackmanii isn’t a public figure.

216

Nit provsionally accepted as valid. Not sure if regularly posting in this forum enough that most know who he is counts or does not count as “voluntarily assumed a position in the public eye.” Plus who knows who he is in real life? Maybe he is a public official. Still and again however, rescinded on that point as applies to my hypothetical.

Authors of popular “nutrition” books however *are *public figures who have voluntarily assumed the position of being in the public’s eye.

217

You know I completely forgot about the entire sections devoted to colon cleanses and detoxing!

218

Public means really public, as in famous. At the very least you’d have to be famous within the field in which the defamation occurs - so if he was well known as a published author he might qualify.

219

The particular examples you have cited are suspect at best. At worst they are repulsive. My proper response would be to go to General Nutrition and other larger health-food stores in the area and inspect the books on display, and see how many of them fit your description. If your sample is representative, I’d have more things to worry about than the issue of raw milk vs. pasteurization. And the question of libel would certainly be moot.
I used to know a health-food store owner in Hermosa Beach who had some strange notions. (He gave me the Fredericks book; he didn’t try to sell me raw milk, but he stocked acidophilus. A doctor I knew at the time suggested that was quack advice.) I quoted a passage from an anatomy book by Isaac Asimov (he was an evangelical Christian and said that Asimov was an atheist) saying that arteries get hard with age because calcium salts build up on the inside. He said that is caused by sugar. He sold dolomite, but put it down for such-and-such reason; I told someone else, and they gave me a circular about the nutrient in dolomite; it was titled “You Need Dolomite!” I read it, and it presented a convincing argument for the nutrient but not for dolomite specifically.
When I would disagree with him on a topic, he would give me sort of a closed-eyes, jolly facial expression and implore me to believe him anyway, without any solid basis. I have not seen him in a long time, which is just as well.

220

I used to have Asperger’s, but then I started drinking raw milk and am the life of the party (except for the explosive diarrhea).