When raw milk sellers list the potential of disease risk their product carries on their packaging, I'll consider them equivalent.
Oh, and any claims that raw milk is better for you must be backed up with real studies or else it's fraud. Agreed?
Oh, and any claims that raw milk is better for you must be backed up with real studies or else it's fraud. Agreed?
If the government really wanted to make sure you are healthy and alive - they would go after real threats. Alcohol, for example. Alcohol-impaired drivers kill 30 people every DAY. 200 kids die every year because a drunk driver killed them.
That's why I hate when people say "oh, get vaccinated to protect the babies who can god forbid contract your disease". What about my own kids who are at the hands of drunk drivers every day on the way back from school? Or when my next-door neighbor smokes outside when they're out playing? FDA and CDC go after raw milk to create the illusion that they're concerned about your health. In reality, it's a protection racket. You are much better off consuming raw dairy from a local farmer you trust and can visit in person than trusting some white liquid that's undergone numerous alterations and comes from sick cows.
Drunk driving is illegal in most places. People do get arrested and loose their license for it, get a record, and go to prison.
But when a person becomes sick after buying raw milk - a SWAT team is sent to raid the local dairy that sold the milk.
However, the same is not done when a person becomes sick from eating contaminated meat that came from a factory farm. Why? Because there's no raw dairy lobby in Washington.
Pasteurization of dairy is of course necessary when the cows are raised in the terrible conditions that they are in most farms today and fed the soy and corn that makes them physically sick. When we used to get our raw milk it was from a local farm we could visit on weekends with our kids, and it was the product of healthy cows who did not have the need to be injected with hormones and antibiotics, who grazed on grass when not milked (by hand) and did not spend their time living on top of their own manure.
Selling raw milk should not be criminal.
Those are two separate issues and trying to argue for one by pointing out the other isn't really effective.
Then what does? If they're using claims they can't back up, or that they know are false, to sell their product, that's pretty clear-cut fraud to me.
> If evidence was doctored to back up the claim that might qualify, but otherwise it's just be an opinion.
Well, you have a much different standard for fraud than I do. I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it.
Why do you think they know the claims are false? Do you even know the claims are false? It doesn't seem so clear to me based on a quick bit of searching. They don't have to back anything up, they only have to reasonably believe it to be true.
"I think my standard is more useful for preventing harm and sending scammers to prison, however, so I'll stick with it."
Your standard would prevent harm. It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal. Fortunately we don't go around sending everybody to prison just because their company included some questionable claims in their marketing.
It's just as bad if they don't know the claims are true. Bullshitting when someone's health is on the line is simply sociopathic.
> It would also render a large fraction of all advertising illegal.
Not all advertising. Just advertising connected to things that are claimed to be healthier, make you healthier, or prevent or treat disease.