Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 It is unfortunate that we all do not have our facts. The truth is they have been trying to shut them down- but if you knew the Hartmann's or anything about selling raw milk you would know why they have not been shutdown. I would encourage you to make a trip to Hartmann's and learn about the farm and the farmers before you make any comments! That to me would be an educated consumer- knowing both sides of the story. Duskwind Farm > > > The state has been trying to shut down Hartmann Dairy for at least 10 years. > > It's not a conspiracy, the state would like to ban raw milk sales, and the > > Hartmann's are probably the most vocal and visible raw milk dairy farmers in > > MN. > > If they wanted to shut them down, for real, it would take a lot less > than 10 years, and a lot less than a few people becoming infected with > E. coli. It's the very definition of a conspiracy theory to make a > jump from this E. coli outbreak to " the government is trying to shut > them down. " > > > Reread the strib article. There is no reference to any statement like 'we > > tested the milk and found it contaminated'. > > The article is about how Hartmann Dairy is 'linked' to an outbreak. What > > does 'linked mean? It is not defined. > > " Linked " implies that they linked it to that particular dairy. They > linked it by comparing the DNA of the E. coli in the individuals and > the food they had in common, which was apparently raw milk from this > dairy. No article needs to spell this out explicitly. > > > Until I see some hard evidence of an issue at the farm, my conclusion is > > that this is just the latest chapter in the harassment saga. > > OK. I invite anyone who goes out and buys raw milk from them to report > back about any symptoms they experience. Keep us in the loop. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 It is unfortunate that we all do not have our facts. The truth is they have been trying to shut them down- but if you knew the Hartmann's or anything about selling raw milk you would know why they have not been shutdown. I would encourage you to make a trip to Hartmann's and learn about the farm and the farmers before you make any comments! That to me would be an educated consumer- knowing both sides of the story. Duskwind Farm > > > The state has been trying to shut down Hartmann Dairy for at least 10 years. > > It's not a conspiracy, the state would like to ban raw milk sales, and the > > Hartmann's are probably the most vocal and visible raw milk dairy farmers in > > MN. > > If they wanted to shut them down, for real, it would take a lot less > than 10 years, and a lot less than a few people becoming infected with > E. coli. It's the very definition of a conspiracy theory to make a > jump from this E. coli outbreak to " the government is trying to shut > them down. " > > > Reread the strib article. There is no reference to any statement like 'we > > tested the milk and found it contaminated'. > > The article is about how Hartmann Dairy is 'linked' to an outbreak. What > > does 'linked mean? It is not defined. > > " Linked " implies that they linked it to that particular dairy. They > linked it by comparing the DNA of the E. coli in the individuals and > the food they had in common, which was apparently raw milk from this > dairy. No article needs to spell this out explicitly. > > > Until I see some hard evidence of an issue at the farm, my conclusion is > > that this is just the latest chapter in the harassment saga. > > OK. I invite anyone who goes out and buys raw milk from them to report > back about any symptoms they experience. Keep us in the loop. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday. Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks when it comes to our food consumption. > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should know your farmer!! How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents happen. It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it, take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure that it doesn't happen again. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday. Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks when it comes to our food consumption. > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should know your farmer!! How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents happen. It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it, take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure that it doesn't happen again. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday. Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks when it comes to our food consumption. > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should know your farmer!! How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents happen. It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it, take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure that it doesn't happen again. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > Well, the state took the Hartmann's to the MN Supreme Court and lost, so it > might not be as easy as you think to shut someone down. I'm pretty sure they could easily pass anti-raw-milk legislation if they wanted to. Who's perpetuating the idea that the state is after this particular farm? I just looked up the appelate decision, and the state didn't lose entirely. Has the state brought other lawsuits against this farm since the decision was made 6 years ago on this case? > So what about the 4th case? How can it have the same 'DNA fingerprint' as > the others, but yet not be linked? > Also note that this is not the milk that is being referenced, but the e.coli > itself. There are no milk tests that I am aware of that confirm > contamination. Maybe they mean directly linked, as in the fourth case was infected from contact with an infected person, rather than the contaminated milk. In any event, I think you're concentrating a bit too much on semantics. The average journalist isn't going to pay all that much attention to the meaning implicit in each word, but that does not change the gist of the story. It will be interesting to hear more about this case, wherever it may lead. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > Well, the state took the Hartmann's to the MN Supreme Court and lost, so it > might not be as easy as you think to shut someone down. I'm pretty sure they could easily pass anti-raw-milk legislation if they wanted to. Who's perpetuating the idea that the state is after this particular farm? I just looked up the appelate decision, and the state didn't lose entirely. Has the state brought other lawsuits against this farm since the decision was made 6 years ago on this case? > So what about the 4th case? How can it have the same 'DNA fingerprint' as > the others, but yet not be linked? > Also note that this is not the milk that is being referenced, but the e.coli > itself. There are no milk tests that I am aware of that confirm > contamination. Maybe they mean directly linked, as in the fourth case was infected from contact with an infected person, rather than the contaminated milk. In any event, I think you're concentrating a bit too much on semantics. The average journalist isn't going to pay all that much attention to the meaning implicit in each word, but that does not change the gist of the story. It will be interesting to hear more about this case, wherever it may lead. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > Well, the state took the Hartmann's to the MN Supreme Court and lost, so it > might not be as easy as you think to shut someone down. I'm pretty sure they could easily pass anti-raw-milk legislation if they wanted to. Who's perpetuating the idea that the state is after this particular farm? I just looked up the appelate decision, and the state didn't lose entirely. Has the state brought other lawsuits against this farm since the decision was made 6 years ago on this case? > So what about the 4th case? How can it have the same 'DNA fingerprint' as > the others, but yet not be linked? > Also note that this is not the milk that is being referenced, but the e.coli > itself. There are no milk tests that I am aware of that confirm > contamination. Maybe they mean directly linked, as in the fourth case was infected from contact with an infected person, rather than the contaminated milk. In any event, I think you're concentrating a bit too much on semantics. The average journalist isn't going to pay all that much attention to the meaning implicit in each word, but that does not change the gist of the story. It will be interesting to hear more about this case, wherever it may lead. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 It does matter how the animals are raised- if you like your cow to be standing in its on fecal matter than go ahead and buy your meat and milk from the the supermarket. If a farmer takes the time to learn the proper way to raise a healthy animal the chances are there will be no contamination. The Hartmann farm has been sought after for years- yet this is the first time I have heard anything about contamination- how many times has Land O' Lakes or Kemps been contaminated or had a recall?? I would like to see your grocery list- if you think that one link to one farm is a problem- how many food items or ingredients on your list have been recalled in the last 2 years. If I did not have my own cow and lived close to the Hartmann's I would go there today and buy their milk- they are a billion times cleaner and more concerned than any confinement farm- pasteurization is needed to clean up the crap that gets into the milk at confinement farms, and that goes for organic dairies as well. My calculated risks lies with the farmers that I purchase from not the mass produced meat and milk at the grocery stores. I am an educated consumer and farmer. If you don't trust the Hartmann's milk don't drink it- but that is your choice a choice I hope that you take delight in making- as I am happy I have to choice to drink my own milk that is the important issue- a right that I do not want to see taken away. Hartmann's I would imagine are not saying much because all that has been established is a link- not a definite hey this farm has caused anything. They have NOT done all the test yet! Innocent until proven guilty! Small farmers like the Hartmann's do not have government and lobbyist making sure that they can still sell- like Pan Peanut-butter. Duskwind Farm > > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday. > > Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food > source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could > become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks > when it comes to our food consumption. > > > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should know your farmer!! > > How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be > raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can > happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents > happen. > > It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that > I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected > milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did > not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The > whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you > trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are > trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it, > take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure > that it doesn't happen again. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 It does matter how the animals are raised- if you like your cow to be standing in its on fecal matter than go ahead and buy your meat and milk from the the supermarket. If a farmer takes the time to learn the proper way to raise a healthy animal the chances are there will be no contamination. The Hartmann farm has been sought after for years- yet this is the first time I have heard anything about contamination- how many times has Land O' Lakes or Kemps been contaminated or had a recall?? I would like to see your grocery list- if you think that one link to one farm is a problem- how many food items or ingredients on your list have been recalled in the last 2 years. If I did not have my own cow and lived close to the Hartmann's I would go there today and buy their milk- they are a billion times cleaner and more concerned than any confinement farm- pasteurization is needed to clean up the crap that gets into the milk at confinement farms, and that goes for organic dairies as well. My calculated risks lies with the farmers that I purchase from not the mass produced meat and milk at the grocery stores. I am an educated consumer and farmer. If you don't trust the Hartmann's milk don't drink it- but that is your choice a choice I hope that you take delight in making- as I am happy I have to choice to drink my own milk that is the important issue- a right that I do not want to see taken away. Hartmann's I would imagine are not saying much because all that has been established is a link- not a definite hey this farm has caused anything. They have NOT done all the test yet! Innocent until proven guilty! Small farmers like the Hartmann's do not have government and lobbyist making sure that they can still sell- like Pan Peanut-butter. Duskwind Farm > > If you are " somewhat surprised that people take it on blind faith that the milk could absolutely have not been contaminated " I wonder where you buy your food- if you shop in a supermarket you take it on blind faith everyday. > > Well, no. I, for one, do not labor under the delusion that ANY food > source is safe. I could grow something in my back yard and it could > become contaminated with something-or-other. We take calculated risks > when it comes to our food consumption. > > > You might not trust it- but I can tell you I would a million times over buy from a farm that I trust and one that I have personally gone to and toured and I felt comfortable with how the animals were raised. That is why you should know your farmer!! > > How the animals are raised has nothing to do with it. They can be > raised impeccably and someone can slip up and contamination can > happen. It just takes one thing not being cleaned properly. Accidents > happen. > > It's not that I do not trust the entire concept of raw milk. It's that > I would not trust raw milk from a farm that has had E. coli-infected > milk traced to it, or, at least, not until it's verified that it did > not come from there, or the contamination is traced and removed. The > whole bit about trusting one's farmer or food provider is not that you > trust that it will never, ever be free from contamination. You are > trusting that if it does become contaminated, they will own up to it, > take steps to remove the contamination, and try their best to ensure > that it doesn't happen again. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > It does matter how the animals are raised- if you like your cow to be standing in its on fecal matter than go ahead and buy your meat and milk from the the supermarket. If a farmer takes the time to learn the proper way to raise a healthy animal the chances are there will be no contamination. The Hartmann farm has been sought after for years- yet this is the first time I have heard anything about contamination- how many times has Land O' Lakes or Kemps been contaminated or had a recall?? You are totally and entirely missing my point. It does not matter if cows are fed rainbows and poop only moonbeams, and if the farm is cleaned five times a day by fairies riding unicorns. If there's some sort of contaminant introduced, and it gets into the milk or meat or vegetables, those products are contaminated. Bacteria aren't going to say, " Oh, wait, this farm produces products in an ethical and environmentally sound matter, and is committed to providing clean, healthy, raw dairy products and organic meat! Let's go next door instead! " Bacteria doesn't discriminate. And, no, it's not conclusive that the E. coli came from this farm, but neither has it been proven that it hasn't. Just because it's not readily apparent where contamination might have come from does not mean it does not exist. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > It does matter how the animals are raised- if you like your cow to be standing in its on fecal matter than go ahead and buy your meat and milk from the the supermarket. If a farmer takes the time to learn the proper way to raise a healthy animal the chances are there will be no contamination. The Hartmann farm has been sought after for years- yet this is the first time I have heard anything about contamination- how many times has Land O' Lakes or Kemps been contaminated or had a recall?? You are totally and entirely missing my point. It does not matter if cows are fed rainbows and poop only moonbeams, and if the farm is cleaned five times a day by fairies riding unicorns. If there's some sort of contaminant introduced, and it gets into the milk or meat or vegetables, those products are contaminated. Bacteria aren't going to say, " Oh, wait, this farm produces products in an ethical and environmentally sound matter, and is committed to providing clean, healthy, raw dairy products and organic meat! Let's go next door instead! " Bacteria doesn't discriminate. And, no, it's not conclusive that the E. coli came from this farm, but neither has it been proven that it hasn't. Just because it's not readily apparent where contamination might have come from does not mean it does not exist. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > It does matter how the animals are raised- if you like your cow to be standing in its on fecal matter than go ahead and buy your meat and milk from the the supermarket. If a farmer takes the time to learn the proper way to raise a healthy animal the chances are there will be no contamination. The Hartmann farm has been sought after for years- yet this is the first time I have heard anything about contamination- how many times has Land O' Lakes or Kemps been contaminated or had a recall?? You are totally and entirely missing my point. It does not matter if cows are fed rainbows and poop only moonbeams, and if the farm is cleaned five times a day by fairies riding unicorns. If there's some sort of contaminant introduced, and it gets into the milk or meat or vegetables, those products are contaminated. Bacteria aren't going to say, " Oh, wait, this farm produces products in an ethical and environmentally sound matter, and is committed to providing clean, healthy, raw dairy products and organic meat! Let's go next door instead! " Bacteria doesn't discriminate. And, no, it's not conclusive that the E. coli came from this farm, but neither has it been proven that it hasn't. Just because it's not readily apparent where contamination might have come from does not mean it does not exist. - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Tipper, We would want to get to the bottom of it, but that requires HONESTY! Something that is not found in agencies that are at war with us. Strong words?, look at reality. It sure sounds nice and cozy that they test the DNA and link it all together, and they care so much about our health and they're just doing their job, and.....Where's the puke bucket?..... What about the folks that never drank milk and are sick??? Why is there never a trace to be found anywhere, other than their test? I'm sure some folks have the same milk in their fridge yet,so it can be tested.But in WI last fall that milk tested negative.Ooooops! Remember Clearview Acres in WI several years back. WI DATCP loves to banty that one about, yet if you talk to those on the scene, only one question was asked. " Did you drink raw milk? " A few dozen had, so the news media did their job in spreading the LIE that it was raw milk. HUNDREDS of people came in sick that did not consume any raw milk. They were given antibiotics and sent home. I talked to one of the nurses on the scene, so I have this first hand.DATCP wanted to shut the farm down and the liars did their thing. Want more proof. I know a farmer that lives next to one of the DATCP guys involved. He told me how the " public servant " laughed about how much grief they caused Clearview Acres. We all know everything in life carries risk, but most of us know that our own government is full of close minded, arrogant, liars with an agenda, so we are very skeptical when things like this come up. My guess is, they haven't even looked into anything else, like in WI last fall. It was the milk from day one, even though only some of the sick people drank raw milk. Cheyenne > > > Most of the news stories, obviously take their info from this release. Not much info in it beyond that three people have ecoli and they're conncting it to MOM' (How would be some nice info), mostly the release is the regular anti-raw milk bs. > > They trace the source of contamination by testing the DNA of the > organism. Bacteria and viruses and the like have slight variations in > their DNA, and thus we can distinguish one strain from another. How > they figure out where it came from is easy - someone gets sick, they > culture the bacteria. Someone else gets sick, they culture that > bacteria and compare the DNA. Then they figure out what similar things > have been consumed and similar places visited, and all they'd have to > do is test the milk and get the same bacteria and you've got your > culprit. > > While I think individual consumers should be able to make their own > decisions about whether or not they wish to drink raw milk, it doesn't > do any good to imply that raw milk couldn't possibly be contaminated > by any sort of illness-causing organism. ANY food product, pasteurized > or not, can. If there is something that happened on this particular > farm that has contaminated the milk, which seems to be the case, I'd > hope that we'd want to get to the bottom of it and fix the problem to > ensure that future milk products are free of contamination, rather > than assuming that there's a witch hunt going on and that every source > of raw dairy is going to be OK all of the time. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Tipper, We would want to get to the bottom of it, but that requires HONESTY! Something that is not found in agencies that are at war with us. Strong words?, look at reality. It sure sounds nice and cozy that they test the DNA and link it all together, and they care so much about our health and they're just doing their job, and.....Where's the puke bucket?..... What about the folks that never drank milk and are sick??? Why is there never a trace to be found anywhere, other than their test? I'm sure some folks have the same milk in their fridge yet,so it can be tested.But in WI last fall that milk tested negative.Ooooops! Remember Clearview Acres in WI several years back. WI DATCP loves to banty that one about, yet if you talk to those on the scene, only one question was asked. " Did you drink raw milk? " A few dozen had, so the news media did their job in spreading the LIE that it was raw milk. HUNDREDS of people came in sick that did not consume any raw milk. They were given antibiotics and sent home. I talked to one of the nurses on the scene, so I have this first hand.DATCP wanted to shut the farm down and the liars did their thing. Want more proof. I know a farmer that lives next to one of the DATCP guys involved. He told me how the " public servant " laughed about how much grief they caused Clearview Acres. We all know everything in life carries risk, but most of us know that our own government is full of close minded, arrogant, liars with an agenda, so we are very skeptical when things like this come up. My guess is, they haven't even looked into anything else, like in WI last fall. It was the milk from day one, even though only some of the sick people drank raw milk. Cheyenne > > > Most of the news stories, obviously take their info from this release. Not much info in it beyond that three people have ecoli and they're conncting it to MOM' (How would be some nice info), mostly the release is the regular anti-raw milk bs. > > They trace the source of contamination by testing the DNA of the > organism. Bacteria and viruses and the like have slight variations in > their DNA, and thus we can distinguish one strain from another. How > they figure out where it came from is easy - someone gets sick, they > culture the bacteria. Someone else gets sick, they culture that > bacteria and compare the DNA. Then they figure out what similar things > have been consumed and similar places visited, and all they'd have to > do is test the milk and get the same bacteria and you've got your > culprit. > > While I think individual consumers should be able to make their own > decisions about whether or not they wish to drink raw milk, it doesn't > do any good to imply that raw milk couldn't possibly be contaminated > by any sort of illness-causing organism. ANY food product, pasteurized > or not, can. If there is something that happened on this particular > farm that has contaminated the milk, which seems to be the case, I'd > hope that we'd want to get to the bottom of it and fix the problem to > ensure that future milk products are free of contamination, rather > than assuming that there's a witch hunt going on and that every source > of raw dairy is going to be OK all of the time. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 Tipper, We would want to get to the bottom of it, but that requires HONESTY! Something that is not found in agencies that are at war with us. Strong words?, look at reality. It sure sounds nice and cozy that they test the DNA and link it all together, and they care so much about our health and they're just doing their job, and.....Where's the puke bucket?..... What about the folks that never drank milk and are sick??? Why is there never a trace to be found anywhere, other than their test? I'm sure some folks have the same milk in their fridge yet,so it can be tested.But in WI last fall that milk tested negative.Ooooops! Remember Clearview Acres in WI several years back. WI DATCP loves to banty that one about, yet if you talk to those on the scene, only one question was asked. " Did you drink raw milk? " A few dozen had, so the news media did their job in spreading the LIE that it was raw milk. HUNDREDS of people came in sick that did not consume any raw milk. They were given antibiotics and sent home. I talked to one of the nurses on the scene, so I have this first hand.DATCP wanted to shut the farm down and the liars did their thing. Want more proof. I know a farmer that lives next to one of the DATCP guys involved. He told me how the " public servant " laughed about how much grief they caused Clearview Acres. We all know everything in life carries risk, but most of us know that our own government is full of close minded, arrogant, liars with an agenda, so we are very skeptical when things like this come up. My guess is, they haven't even looked into anything else, like in WI last fall. It was the milk from day one, even though only some of the sick people drank raw milk. Cheyenne > > > Most of the news stories, obviously take their info from this release. Not much info in it beyond that three people have ecoli and they're conncting it to MOM' (How would be some nice info), mostly the release is the regular anti-raw milk bs. > > They trace the source of contamination by testing the DNA of the > organism. Bacteria and viruses and the like have slight variations in > their DNA, and thus we can distinguish one strain from another. How > they figure out where it came from is easy - someone gets sick, they > culture the bacteria. Someone else gets sick, they culture that > bacteria and compare the DNA. Then they figure out what similar things > have been consumed and similar places visited, and all they'd have to > do is test the milk and get the same bacteria and you've got your > culprit. > > While I think individual consumers should be able to make their own > decisions about whether or not they wish to drink raw milk, it doesn't > do any good to imply that raw milk couldn't possibly be contaminated > by any sort of illness-causing organism. ANY food product, pasteurized > or not, can. If there is something that happened on this particular > farm that has contaminated the milk, which seems to be the case, I'd > hope that we'd want to get to the bottom of it and fix the problem to > ensure that future milk products are free of contamination, rather > than assuming that there's a witch hunt going on and that every source > of raw dairy is going to be OK all of the time. > > - Tipper > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify shutting down a farmer are not clear. You are welcome to dismiss this as semantics, but I'll guarantee you that the key phrases of that article/press release were not carelessly chosen. They did not come from the strib journalist; he got them from the state. And I'd bet the rent that the state's definitions of 'linked' and 'DNA fingerprint' are nothing like yours. The larger issue is a question of civil liberties: Should we allow the state to take someone's livelihood without any due process or conclusive evidence? As citizens, should we be free to do our own due diligence and purchase food from whomever we choose to? BTW, my order is being picked up at the farm today. Looking forward to a cold glass of raw milk this evening! Greg On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gallagher wrote: > > > So what about the 4th case? How can it have the same 'DNA fingerprint' > as > > the others, but yet not be linked? > > Also note that this is not the milk that is being referenced, but the > e.coli > > itself. There are no milk tests that I am aware of that confirm > > contamination. > > Maybe they mean directly linked, as in the fourth case was infected > from contact with an infected person, rather than the contaminated > milk. In any event, I think you're concentrating a bit too much on > semantics. The average journalist isn't going to pay all that much > attention to the meaning implicit in each word, but that does not > change the gist of the story. > _.___ > > Recent Activity: > > - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trad-foods-MN/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTYxMDR\ mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3Z\ tYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNzQ5ODI0OTE-?o=6> > 5 > > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trad-foods-MN;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbXI4dWM3BF9TAzk3M\ zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3Rpb\ WUDMTI3NDk4MjQ5MQ--> > [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYTZxaTBxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAz\ Q4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjc0OTgyNDkx> > Switch to: Text-Only<trad-foods-MN-traditional ?subject=Change+Delivery+Form\ at:+Traditional>, > Daily Digest<trad-foods-MN-digest ?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe<trad-foods-MN-unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify shutting down a farmer are not clear. You are welcome to dismiss this as semantics, but I'll guarantee you that the key phrases of that article/press release were not carelessly chosen. They did not come from the strib journalist; he got them from the state. And I'd bet the rent that the state's definitions of 'linked' and 'DNA fingerprint' are nothing like yours. The larger issue is a question of civil liberties: Should we allow the state to take someone's livelihood without any due process or conclusive evidence? As citizens, should we be free to do our own due diligence and purchase food from whomever we choose to? BTW, my order is being picked up at the farm today. Looking forward to a cold glass of raw milk this evening! Greg On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Gallagher wrote: > > > So what about the 4th case? How can it have the same 'DNA fingerprint' > as > > the others, but yet not be linked? > > Also note that this is not the milk that is being referenced, but the > e.coli > > itself. There are no milk tests that I am aware of that confirm > > contamination. > > Maybe they mean directly linked, as in the fourth case was infected > from contact with an infected person, rather than the contaminated > milk. In any event, I think you're concentrating a bit too much on > semantics. The average journalist isn't going to pay all that much > attention to the meaning implicit in each word, but that does not > change the gist of the story. > _.___ > > Recent Activity: > > - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trad-foods-MN/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTYxMDR\ mBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3Z\ tYnJzBHN0aW1lAzEyNzQ5ODI0OTE-?o=6> > 5 > > Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/trad-foods-MN;_ylc=X3oDMTJlbXI4dWM3BF9TAzk3M\ zU5NzE0BGdycElkAzQ4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3Rpb\ WUDMTI3NDk4MjQ5MQ--> > [image: Yahoo! Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkYTZxaTBxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAz\ Q4MjM3NjgEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDYwOTc0BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMjc0OTgyNDkx> > Switch to: Text-Only<trad-foods-MN-traditional ?subject=Change+Delivery+Form\ at:+Traditional>, > Daily Digest<trad-foods-MN-digest ?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe<trad-foods-MN-unsubscribe ?subject=Unsubscribe>• Terms > of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify > shutting down a farmer are not clear. Obviously, they're not shut down. You're getting some milk there tonight, aren't you? - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify > shutting down a farmer are not clear. Obviously, they're not shut down. You're getting some milk there tonight, aren't you? - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify > shutting down a farmer are not clear. Obviously, they're not shut down. You're getting some milk there tonight, aren't you? - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 My dh had a very serious case of food poisoning several years ago, due to several complications, it put him out of comission for almost 2 months. We had been out of state for a number of days and and he first started to feel sick just as we got back so we know it couldn't have been from any of our own personal sources of food. My dh went to the doc. No tests were done. The Dr " confirmed " food poisoning (probably from a restaurant buffet) and prescribed an antibiotic. Turns out that since no testing was done, the antibiotic didn't kill the bad bacteria, just destroyed his normal gut flora and he became horribly, horribly ill. Then the Dr finally did a test and found out exactly what the bad critter was in his system. We never heard from the dept of health or any agency of any sort even though the dr. reported it. I have no respect for, nor do I trust how the dept of health or ag will handle this ..ahem.. " outbreak " . Lynn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 The state has blocked them from deliveries, which is why I used the phrase 'effectively shut down'. There is no evidence of contamination, so I believe the existing statute allowing sales directly from the farm still holds. Greg > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Greg <gmiller99@...<gmiller99%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify > > shutting down a farmer are not clear. > > Obviously, they're not shut down. You're getting some milk there > tonight, aren't you? > > - Tipper > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 The state has blocked them from deliveries, which is why I used the phrase 'effectively shut down'. There is no evidence of contamination, so I believe the existing statute allowing sales directly from the farm still holds. Greg > > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Greg <gmiller99@...<gmiller99%40gmail.com>> > wrote: > > The problem here is the meaning of the terms that are used to justify > > shutting down a farmer are not clear. > > Obviously, they're not shut down. You're getting some milk there > tonight, aren't you? > > - Tipper > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2010 Report Share Posted May 27, 2010 > The state has blocked them from deliveries, which is why I used the phrase > 'effectively shut down'. > There is no evidence of contamination, so I believe the existing statute > allowing sales directly from the farm still holds. Isn't all raw milk supposed to be purchased at the farm of origin, anyway, in order for the sale to be legal? - Tipper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.