Yes, but it’s voluntarily and unnecessarily unsafe. It’s like scuba diving without a timer. You can do that, but it’s a dumb idea when the alternative is right there and widely available.

▲

lupusreal 7 months ago | parent [-]

Swimming without a life preserver kills a lot more people than raw milk; should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?

Most people would probably reject that; they know how to swim and the government should butt out of it. From my personal perspective, informed by my background as a lifeguard and competitive swimmer, I dispute the swimming ability of most of the general public who claim they can swim. Most people who claim they "can swim" are just barely capable of not drowning under ideal conditions. Mandating life preservers for anybody who jumps into a lake or pool would without a shred of doubt save many lives every year. But should that really be done? Is protecting people from themselves really what we should be prioritizing before all else? Sometimes we should let people enjoy things, even if it may kill them.

▲

kstrauser 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

It wasn't a perfect analogy by a long shot. In this case, the question is more whether we should ignore established FDA food safety requirements for no particular reason? Like, what if I don't mind beetles in my oat. Shouldn't I be able to buy them that way?

Perhaps. I don't think someone should be allowed to sell them that way, though.

▲

consteval 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> should the government mandate that anybody going in the water wear one?

No, but they do regulate who is selling it. You can't find a cruise ship without life preservers on it - even if you really want to, and you're all about raw water or whatever.

The issue with raw milk isn't random people using their own cows to drink raw milk. The issue is people selling it en-masse. They will lie about the dangers, ensuring their consumers are as uneducated as possible, and then certainly sweep the predictable deaths under the rug.

If you truly don't believe me, go ahead and look at raw milk influencers. When I say they speak almost exclusively bullshit, that's not an exaggeration. Typically they engage in all forms of pseudo-science. Crystals, alchemy, anti-vax, you name it.

These people aren't trying to be honest about the dangers. They live in a parallel universe with different rules.

It's not protecting people from themselves - it's protecting consumers from those who would kill them for a quick buck (i.e. pretty much any anybody if they could get away with it)

▲

lupusreal 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

The government can mandate that boats have life preservers, but if somebody wants to jump off the boat into frigid water without one, that's legal even though it will very likely kill them.

Anyway, if people want to practice alchemy too, let them. Let people drink quicksilver if that's what they want to do.

	▲	consteval 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		It’s like you didn’t read my comment at all. Yes, I already said this. My point was about the dangers around allowing the commercial sale of raw milk and how that’s a fundamentally different problem than just allowing raw milk.

▲

tjr 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

I have not gotten the impression that raw milk aficionados are in it for the money. What makes you think that?

	▲	consteval 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		They’re typically health influencers who attempt to get you to buy vitamins and supplements and programs you don’t need. Sometimes they sell sacred geometry pendants and whatever other made up bullshit too. Point being, they’re almost never honest. So, if they’re telling you raw milk is not only safe, but will cure a variety of modern ailments, just… grain of salt. They rely on having an audience of gullible and health insecure people.