Well. That's interesting.

The fact is, raw milk does *NOT* have any of these wonderful "health" things in it, that pasteurizing "takes out."

This is woo.

And it's dangerous.

Problem solved.

When can I disagree with you and not get a label?

Funny that I just posted about labeling and you send me there.

Your way or the highway.

You really are easily offended, considering all the negativity you toss around here in your bizarre invasions of this group.

http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/nonpasteurized-outbreaks.html

http://scienceblogs.com/whitecoatunderground/2009/12/28/ive-never-understood-food-fads/

http://www.sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=145&Itemid=649

The third link wouldn't even reference the allergy debate that's inconclusive.

With the CDC link, they state 60% of the reported illnesses are about raw milk. Fair to say that there is a lot LESS consumption of the stuff making that 60% an eye-popper. But we really don't know that the reporting on the pasteurized outbreaks is rigorous.

Did you ever have food poisoning and not call the CDC???

I have little doubt that the "safer" route is not raw. But why get in people's way if they want to drink the stuff. I'd agree a warning label would be in order...but a storm over it???

Do you realize there are cars on the road that lack air bags?? Do you?

And you're worried about glyphosate, because you want to bring back more toxic herbicides?

http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2015/03/glyphosate-and-cancer-what-does-the-data-say/

http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

You're whole schtick is just bad propaganda. It's bizarre.

You buy into every baseless fear mongering bit of nonsense that is popular at DU. Questioning is not your thing.