[DINKDINK]

I would love to see the data with comparison to baseline too. and it is an example of a nanny state (the FDA is literally saying, we have to protect you from this) rather than acting as a licensed-milk-producer-seal issuer.

It's the same nanny state issue when the FDA shut down more beneficial AIDS treatments in the 80s and 90s when the only drugs on the market, that the FDA approved of (AZT), were essentially toxic and killed about the same number of people that they "helped". Why should the FDA decide what goes into the bodies of supposedly "free" people? They should only act to say, "This is the only type of drugs or milk the FDA approves of"

[vidarh]

You could take a look at the Centre for Disease Control's page about the issue, which includes a PDF with detailed breakdown of disease outbreaks linked to raw milk:

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.html

It's not particularly favorable to raw milk.

> They should only act to say, "This is the only type of drugs or milk the FDA approves of"

The same CDC report mentioned above, specifically address labelling, and points out that the numbers show that labelling is not shown to have significant effect.

If it was only your body you put at risk, you might have a point, but this also includes parents putting their children at substantial risk, and people putting others at risk whenever they serve non-pasteurised dairy products and people are not themselves aware of the risk.

[jeangenie]

I replied to the parent above but wanted to point you that you, too, are 'udder'ly mistaken.

http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/raw-milk-news/story/outbreak...