Comments:Canadian farmer vows to continue providing customers with raw milk despite order

Back to article

Wikinews commentary.svg

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

They have American cars there :-)

Buses weren't invented when Martin Luther was alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.175.129 (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

156 go play in traffic --66.229.17.181 19:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

They don't ban smoking, but they ban milk? Why not just slap some disclaimers on it from the Surgeon General, or the Canadian equivalent? Jade Knight (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, just out of curiosity, OF COURSE *wink*, totally not because I'd want to buy any *wink*, who is this guy? *wink-wink* Fephisto (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

What does raw milk taste like anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.25.133 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy's right to fight. I drink straight from the utter every morning :) Just gargle some mouthwash afterwords and enjoy. 24.30.16.34 15:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ban Ciggerate Sales as well in that case.Edit

What I dont understand is that, "How come a court is allowed to ban sale of a product which might be bad for health and allow others like ciggerates to be sold which definitely cause cancer". Does the law make rules for companies based on there size and the revenue that they generate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsoodan (talkcontribs) 01:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

raw milkEdit

I have never had raw milk because of laws just like this one in Canada. I'd like to try it. I have read many positive things about raw milk. It is unfortunate that the government of Canada, and likely many other countries or states, sides with an industry wishing to maintain control over a product that has supported human life for hundreds of thousands of years. I wish, at the least, that I could choose for myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.248.180 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, "for hundreds of thousands of years" people died from bacteria-induced diseases, from sources which include raw milk. That said, the decision to ban raw milk but not a whole host of argueably more unhealthy things strikes me as bizarre.67.193.146.210 02:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Schmidt's argument is fair enoughEdit

I really believe what he is upto is correct. Today's corporatisation of consumer products like daily foods is bringing down the food's nutrition value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.226.173.82 (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Get on Mr Canadian Farmer Man!!

I underdstand the reasonsing behind standard pasturisation of milk because of the risks, however if people want to drink Raw milk...that is there choice.

Honestly, fancy a government having to waste there time telling us what milk we can and cannot drink, what happened to free will?

I'm happy he is sticking up for himself and peoples right.

We do not live in a dictatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.6.79.200 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Raw milk is the shiznak. That is all. Zidel333 (talk) 19:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not?Edit

I believe people should be able to drink whatever they want, so long as they know what they are drinking. If they want to risk E.Coli or salmonella, that's their prerogative. We dont make extreme sports illegal, and there is probably more of a chance to get injured or die in that, so why impose on simple people that enjoy raw milk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.130.146 (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems the point is that he is selling the raw milkEdit

If this guy wanted to just give away his raw milk to interested people who know the risks involved I do not think there would be any problem. This looks more like a case where it is the actual sale of the dangerous substance that is regulated against. If the guy is trying to depict himself as a saint here, let him give the stuff away and not try to make money off of making others sick. 66.20.174.108 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Raw MilkEdit

My name is Daniel and I grew up on milk strait out of the cow. Then one day a law was passed saying that this process which has occurred for many hundreds of years is now bad, and I have never drunken dairy milk since. By pasteurizing milk it destroys the taste and it's essence. If, i get salmonellae poisoning from drinking unpasteurized milk, that should be my choice not the governments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.172.177 (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I support the farmer's decision to continue providing raw milk to those who want it that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.188.181 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Canada is the only country in the world that strictly forbids raw milk. Why? The reason is still unknown. There are states and different places around the world that also forbid raw milk. But the only harm raw milk does is to it's consumers. Think of it as population control. So if he wants to drink and sell raw milk then let him do so. Plus meats contain e.coil, samonella and listerious but that doesn't prevent people puchasing it raw. Also many fish contain worms such as the tapeworm and sushi resturants still exist. I say the distribution of raw milk should be at the consumers own risk. Hence why we have caution signs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.210.10.253 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian farmer vows to continue providing customers with raw milk despite order (comment)Edit

Its good to see someone take a stand for what they beleive in. The milk hasn't harmed anyone. I'm sure thats how they drank milk before pasterization anyway. I wish I could try a glass...I love milk!

Sean Jensen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.113.178 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that is how they drank it before, before anyone knew germs were how diseases worked. Pasteurization is done to kill many disease causing microorganisms and prevent the widespread outbreak of multiple diseases. Milk taste is secondary in the interest of public health, so public sale is regulated for just reasons. If the farmer gave it away as some farmers do the maggot cheese specialty in Sardinia, and only to informed drinkers then it would be different, and there would be no restriction. The restriction is on sale to the public, not for some kind of esoteric behavior modification like so many of the paranoid idiots above claim. 74.227.163.196 20:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't milk regulated by the government like alcohol anyway? Don't they control the quota given to dairy farmers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.113.178 (talk) 10:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Canadian farmer vows to continue providing raw milk.Edit

I agree with the farmer. I was raised on a combination of raw and condensed milk, as was everyone in my area. I never heard of anyone ever getting sick on milk. -70.66.169.64 (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)