Thanks! That’s a good solid argument. Sounds as though* he* doesn’t wear his underwear on the outside…
…sorry, Antibob, as far as I’m concerned, you’re overruled. 
There is an increased risk of serious disease associated with raw milk consumption, about 50 to 160 fold greater riskfor Listerosis alone (pdf). Assuming 3 servings a day 2 per thousand pregnant women would become ill in a year. The general population would be at lower risk, more like 2 per hundred thousand per year or one out of 500 each decade. (Roughing the calculation.) Most people would go through a lifetime of exposure and not get sick … but quite a few would. Over 8 decades it comes up to something like 16 per thousand. 984 (roughly) of that thousand will get away with no raw milk associated illness after a whole lifetime of exposure. Smoking does not universally cause death either - 2 out 3 people will not die from a smoking related illness despite smoking. It is not “invariably” a danger; it just changes the odds and causes many to die.
Again, I have no issue with adults choosing to take that risk upon themselves with full informed knowledge that they are taking that risk. People can choose to smoke, to drink to excess, to take on a bunch of risks of their own free will. Being stupid is a right in my book. … I do have major issue with producers not adequately revealing that such increased risk exists and even more major issue with exposing children to that risk.
In my mind each of those latter actions cross the line from stupidity into criminal negligence and should be handled as such.
Even a lot of raw milk drinkers would tell you to stay away from cheese made with raw milk, especially the so-called “bathtub” cheese. I’m more interested in the risk from raw milk itself.
Observation:
More people have been harmed by raw milk than by cannabis.
Except maybe lung cancer, but there are contradictory studies on that.
Lightning strikes dwarf both causes of injury/death, by the way.
Oops, I missed this in my last read-through. Do anti-vaxxers really argue “yes vaccines work but we’ll take the relatively small risk?” Or are they just fucking crazy and think vaccines cause autism, and vaccine injections include microchip tracking devices, and screw your herd immunity?
Anyway, I agree - I believe raw milk should only be sold directly producer-to-consumer, and the idea of putting it on store shelves is crazy. It does require a higher degree of care in production, to your point. The only reason I feel okay buying it is that the farm is down the street, the operator is a currently-licensed dairy inspector who actually worked for many years as a dairy inspector, and I can walk around and look at stuff.
Not quite. Several have argued that there are many people who suffer from the side effects but not so many who suffer from the disease. Therefore, the side effects are more dangerous. True, sort of, but it misses the point that this is guaranteed to happen when mass vaccinations actually work.
That’s why a count of sufferers of food contamination can be misleading. It may be that consumption of raw milk is safer than we think. Or it could simply be the low absolute level of consumption skews towards people buying from safer sources (small farms that can better perform safe practices for selling raw milk). With greater consumption, the risk won’t necessarily increase linearly, since adequate supervision over the cows and the milking can’t grow linearly.
I’m there with you. Let people buy small quantities raw milk straight from the producer, if they want, as long as we don’t go back to the days of mass consumption of unpasteurized dairy products.
And lightning strike injuries/deaths are dwarfed by casualties on the Somme.
Somme what?