Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
15
... LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Zadiell View Post
    You have to see it from a deeper point of view, big companies get these laws passed thought lobbying, to benefit them and make it impossible for smaller companies to pay the rediculas testing prices, they are enforcing small companies like this to take all thier products off the market for 9 months, and test every ingredient, the company can't make any money and have to refund every person who purchased their product, and the only companies that do not have to do this are the big companies.Basically if you have manmade ingredients you dont have to test them if you have real natural ingredients, you have to go through this testing.

    it might be a law, but its not just. its simply big companies trying to strong arm small companies, these big companies use synthetic ingredients cause its cheap and can be patented. Natural food cannot be patented. All these new food ingredients, and genetic modifying is not because its better than natural, its because a company can patent a GMO product. farmers who use GMO seeds, cant harvest the seeds to use for next season, they have to buy seeds every year from the company with the patent. It's all greedy business, nothing right or just about it. The police arin't at fault however they are just doing thier job. While no one looks at the real criminals.
    Now, that's quite a different matter altogether. It's very true that many laws are passed by big companies lobbying, but milk pasteurization is not one of them. Having to pasteurize the milk actually makes things more expensive for the companies, not cheaper. Why would they lobby for a law that hits their bottom line? It was the FDA that lobbied to pass the law, following studies done on pasteurization.

    Now, on the other hand, we could look at those studies, see if the results were swayed by some corporation, but again, the question is why?

    The problem of GMO seeds being patented is also very unrelated, and also a pretty serious problem. It has nothing to do with the healthyness, as you say, and everything to do with the patent. The proper thing to do in my opinion would be to pass a law making it legal for farmers who harvest their own GMO seeds to plant those seeds and sell the resulting crop. On the other hand, there is also an FDA mandated reason why GMO seeds have to be sold from a supplier to have the crop sold, that being it's really the only way to be sure that the resulting crop isn't modified in some way that could potentially be harmful to those who consume it.

    There's a lot of layers to this issue, but none of it has to do with a massive government conspiracy against Rawsome foods.
    Last edited by Herecius; 2011-08-06 at 06:08 PM.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by skrump View Post
    cooking most foods sucks the majority of nutrients right out of them so man needs to eat twice as much to sustain the nutrients within the body.
    It is alot like people who will not eat the skin off a potato because it might be dirty (even though it has twice the nutrients than the rest of the potato.)

    Another example would in many countries people eat many types of meat raw and it does not effect them because their bodies have built up immunities to things that would kill your average pussified American.

    Hell I remember as a Child I remember seeing my mother eat bits of raw hamburger meat while preparing it for dinner and she had done so her entire life without problem (other than the occasional case of the squirts) yet now days everyone believes eating raw hamburger will undoubtedly hospitalize them.

    In short the human body develops immunities to germs,bacteria when those same germs,bacteria are constantly forced onto the body however when these same germs,bacteria are not constantly reintroduced to the body the immune system cannot fight them and they become deadly.
    I prefer not to have "the squirts."

    This is about natural food. Unmodified and unaltered natural food. Food that doesn't require testing because there is no question as to it authenticity. Cow eats grass. Cow makes milk. Milk utters. Drink milk. Regulation at its absolute worst.

  3. #83
    Herald of the Titans GodlyBob's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,713
    Quote Originally Posted by skrump View Post
    cooking most foods sucks the majority of nutrients right out of them so man needs to eat twice as much to sustain the nutrients within the body.
    It is alot like people who will not eat the skin off a potato because it might be dirty (even though it has twice the nutrients than the rest of the potato.)

    Another example would in many countries people eat many types of meat raw and it does not effect them because their bodies have built up immunities to things that would kill your average pussified American.
    Cooking food does destroy some nutrients in the food, but it allows you to digest a lot more nutrients that would have otherwise passed through your system. Cooking food also allows you to eat some things that are a little less than fresh by destroying bacteria and parasites present said product. You could say that eating something raw is "healthier" in the sense that it has less calories and therefore can cause you to lose weight (if you have a weight problem), but they are in no way more nutritious and can be a lot more dangerous. Operative word there: can.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Psilar View Post
    This is about natural food. Unmodified and unaltered natural food. Food that doesn't require testing because there is no question as to it authenticity. Cow eats grass. Cow makes milk. Milk utters. Drink milk. Regulation at its absolute worst.
    What if that grass had bacteria in it? What if the cow was sick? What if the milk got contaminated? What if alien space rays turned that cow into a robot-unicorn-death hybrid planted here on this earth to annihilate mankind via the power of milk? We'd never know without that regulation!

    More seriously, there are plenty of 'natural foods' that are quite harmful to you in their raw and natural state. Just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good for you.

  5. #85
    Mechagnome Magisleeper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a crawlspace in a desert near you.
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by skrump View Post
    cooking most foods sucks the majority of nutrients right out of them so man needs to eat twice as much to sustain the nutrients within the body.
    It is alot like people who will not eat the skin off a potato because it might be dirty (even though it has twice the nutrients than the rest of the potato.)

    Another example would in many countries people eat many types of meat raw and it does not effect them because their bodies have built up immunities to things that would kill your average pussified American.

    Hell I remember as a Child I remember seeing my mother eat bits of raw hamburger meat while preparing it for dinner and she had done so her entire life without problem (other than the occasional case of the squirts) yet now days everyone believes eating raw hamburger will undoubtedly hospitalize them.

    In short the human body develops immunities to germs,bacteria when those same germs,bacteria are constantly forced onto the body however when these same germs,bacteria are not constantly reintroduced to the body the immune system cannot fight them and they become deadly.
    While it is true that the human body will develope immunities over time to many things, raw hamburger can contain ecoli at the mild end of the spectrum and spongiform encephalopathy at the more dangerous end. Those are things your body doesnt develope an immunity to. Cooking foods my remove some nutrients from them but I am positive that if the choice is between consuming more food to get the same nutrient content or consuming less potentially harmfull food most people would choose eating more. Also, these things that may turn out to be mild for an adult to fight off from raw foods would be fatal 90% of the time for a child or baby. There is a reason people cook food, its because as a whole its safer, removes bacteria, and makes it easier to digest.

    The strange thing is raw food advocates that believe we are making ourselves sick by sterilizing everything were all the same people who said a vaccine was going to give your child downs syndrome when a vaccine works the same way, by introducing a small amount of a virus(mostly neutralized) into the body to allow it to create antibodies to fight it off in a real case scenario. Well the human body fights off all forms of infection the same way, but with raw foods first you have to actually get sick before you body can form the correct antibodies. And your chances of contracting something more dangerous from constant exposure to raw just increase exponentially over time.
    Farewell WoW Pandaland
    Intel i5 2.67 OC 3.3ghz | ATI 6950 850mhz OC 920Stable 950 Push 1000Insane

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by skrump View Post
    T
    For whatever reason selling it in the united states is against the law (The American people never got to vote on the matter)
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/wk/mm5822.pdf

    Although the dairy commodity accounted for only 3% of single commodity outbreak-related cases (16 outbreaks and 193 cases), 71% of dairy outbreak cases were attributed to unpasteurized (raw) milk (10 outbreaks and 137 cases). A wide range of bacterial pathogens were associated with unpasteurized milk outbreaks, including Campylobacter (six outbreaks), STEC O157 (two outbreaks), Salmonella (one outbreak), and Listeria (one outbreak), resulting in 11 hospitalizations and one death.

    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm?s_cid=mm5608a3_e

    E. coli O157:H7 causes an estimated 73,000 illnesses and 61 deaths annually in the United States (2). Approximately 8% of reported infections lead to HUS, particularly in children aged <5 years and older adults (3); 4% of patients with HUS die (4). Raw milk is an important vehicle of transmission of E. coliO157:H7 and other pathogens, including Mycobacterium bovis, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter, Brucella, and Salmonella species (5,6). During 1988--2005, a total of 33 outbreaks of Campylobacter species, E. coli O157:H7, and Salmonella species infections associated with raw milk consumption were reported to CDC (7).

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_5_38/ai_n6198587/pg_2/?tag=mantle_skin;content

    2000-2001--In North Carolina, 12 adults were infected with Listeria monocytogenes linked to homemade, Mexican-style fresh soft cheese produced from contaminated raw milk sold by a local dairy farm. Ten of the 12 victims were pregnant women, and infection with the bacterium resulted in five stillbirths, three premature deliveries, and two infected newborns.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1508307/pdf/amjph00020-0077.pdf

    The hazards of drinking raw milk are evident from the list of infectious diseases that may be acquired from this product; these include campylobacteriosis,' salmonellosis,2 yersiniosis,3 listeriosis,4 tuberculosis,5 brucellosis,6 staphylococcal enterotoxin poisoning,7 streptococcal infections,8'9 and Escherichia coli 0157:H7 infection.'0 Additionally, raw milk has been implicated as a vehicle in the transmission of Brainerd diarrhea."

    http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/384/RawMilkOutbreakTable.pdf

    That's why.

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Magisleeper View Post
    You do not understand cause and effect methinks. If the law is, dont kill people, a person admitted to killing another person, the only logical way to describe that is the person broke the law.
    a i understand perfectly the rule of cause and effect. yes in your example you are logical, if a person kills somebody, and the law makes murder illegal, and the murderer admits guilt. then you can conclude they murdered somebody.

    unfortunately my example is not the same. your first example "raw and unpasteurized milk is illegal to sell in the states without accompanying permits. They broke the law and were arrested." this seems like a pretty illogical conclusion to me, and this example does not match your murderer example. where person A. murders, it was deemed illegal to murder, and person A. admits guilt. no this is a point of Person A is accused of something deemed illegal, and no further evidence proving anything has been released in a statement by officals. therefore your assumption of guilt without proof is illogical.

    Quote Originally Posted by Herecius View Post
    If the police did all of the things you are claiming that they did, then this entire incident would fall to pieces in an actual court of law. There's no hilarious government conspiracy. I think I made it pretty clear that the police, or anybody else for that matter, would be unable to hide it.

    Murderers - actual murderers, who almost are undoubtedly guilty - walk free when because a search warrant was handled improperly. Because a single piece (of sometimes pointless) evidence was mishandled. Murderers walk free when proper legal procedure isn't followed. There is plenty of reason to believe that proper procedure has been followed here, and if it hasn't, that it will soon be known to have been followed incorrectly.

    In order for this entire thing to be covered up, there would have to be multi-level government conspiracy aimed at these raw-food sellers that spread through nearly every section of the legal system. To even suggest such a thing is preposterous in its absurdity. They would have to falsify warrants, destroy paperwork, and get everybody in on it from the ground level all the way up to the appeals court and supreme court.
    A. i have not claimed anything, i merely suggested it as a possibility, giving a reason as to not assume other people are correct in their claims that were unfounded in logic.
    B. there is no way to prove the non existance of a "hilarious government conspiracy."
    C. your paragraph on murderers gives my points strength.
    D. yes your last paragraph is true, for a cover up, there would have to be a multi-level government conspiracy aimed at the accused. but to suggest it is not possible is an absurdity, not the other way around. until facts disproving an existance arrise, the existance there of is a possibility. (far fetched does not equate to untrue, or impossible) this is what you call sound logic.

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Psilar View Post
    I prefer not to have "the squirts."

    This is about natural food. Unmodified and unaltered natural food. Food that doesn't require testing because there is no question as to it authenticity. Cow eats grass. Cow makes milk. Milk utters. Drink milk. Regulation at its absolute worst.
    You forgot a part:

    Cow shits. Shit ends up on udder. E coli appears in milk from shit. Unpasteurized milk is sold with e coli present. People get sick. People die.

  9. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by Magisleeper View Post
    While it is true that the human body will develope immunities over time to many things, raw hamburger can contain ecoli at the mild end of the spectrum and spongiform encephalopathy at the more dangerous end. Those are things your body doesnt develope an immunity to. Cooking foods my remove some nutrients from them but I am positive that if the choice is between consuming more food to get the same nutrient content or consuming less potentially harmfull food most people would choose eating more. Also, these things that may turn out to be mild for an adult to fight off from raw foods would be fatal 90% of the time for a child or baby. There is a reason people cook food, its because as a whole its safer, removes bacteria, and makes it easier to digest.

    The strange thing is raw food advocates that believe we are making ourselves sick by sterilizing everything were all the same people who said a vaccine was going to give your child downs syndrome when a vaccine works the same way, by introducing a small amount of a virus(mostly neutralized) into the body to allow it to create antibodies to fight it off in a real case scenario. Well the human body fights off all forms of infection the same way, but with raw foods first you have to actually get sick before you body can form the correct antibodies. And your chances of contracting something more dangerous from constant exposure to raw just increase exponentially over time.
    i honestly agree with all of your claims in this post fully. in my personal opinion we should be going organic, and cooking, and fulfilling nutrient requirements with supplements. this corrects the issues with raw foods, potential gmo issues that are not yet studied, and the need to overcompensate nutritionally and eliminating a portion of obesity from over compensation in consumption.

    ---------- Post added 2011-08-06 at 01:25 PM ----------

    but that does not mean we should take away the freedom to choose to eat raw foods or any other foods for that matter. have to defend the liberty of others choices to have it for your own.

  10. #90
    Herald of the Titans GodlyBob's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,713
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePalidius View Post
    but to suggest it is not possible is an absurdity, not the other way around. until facts disproving an existance arrise, the existance there of is a possibility. (far fetched does not equate to untrue, or impossible) this is what you call sound logic.
    There is a minutely small possibility that through some previously unknown working of quantum mechanics, the molecules in my keyboard will rearrange themselves into a 3 in tall, ice-skating penguin after I post this reply. The only proof i have that this will not happen is that it has never happened to me personally, any of my friends, or in any news story i have read in my life. Likewise, as far as we know, there has never​ been a conspiracy of the magnitude you posit as possible to have existed before. There's a first time for everything, but some are so improbable as to be considered impossible.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePalidius View Post


    but that does not mean we should take away the freedom to choose to eat raw foods or any other foods for that matter. have to defend the liberty of others choices to have it for your own.
    There's only one problem with this in regards to food: people are stupid.

    Now, I don't mean that to flame anyone in this post. But MOST people (and I include myself in this) don't know what goes into proper cooking, making sure things aren't undercooked, or what's dangerous in certain raw foods. In order for raw food to be safe for the average person you'd need a list bigger than the package listing why it might be unsafe, how to cook it right, how to make sure it's not unsafe, and all sorts of things of that nature.

    You CAN eat your own raw foods, though. You can have your own farm, get your raw foods, and consume them/ give them to friends/ family. But you can't SELL them unless you have a permit.

  12. #92
    Mechagnome Magisleeper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a crawlspace in a desert near you.
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePalidius View Post
    a i understand perfectly the rule of cause and effect. yes in your example you are logical, if a person kills somebody, and the law makes murder illegal, and the murderer admits guilt. then you can conclude they murdered somebody.

    unfortunately my example is not the same. your first example "raw and unpasteurized milk is illegal to sell in the states without accompanying permits. They broke the law and were arrested." this seems like a pretty illogical conclusion to me, and this example does not match your murderer example. where person A. murders, it was deemed illegal to murder, and person A. admits guilt. no this is a point of Person A is accused of something deemed illegal, and no further evidence proving anything has been released in a statement by officals. therefore your assumption of guilt without proof is illogical.
    First off, it wasnt my example, secondly:
    Selling unpasturized milk without proper permits is illegal in w/e state.
    Rawsome sold unpasturized milk in said states without needed permits.
    Rawsome broke the law.

    This is essentially what you said was illogical, go read your own post, the only mitigating factors to the logic of this would be if the possesion of permits was in question, if it is not, then they broke the law and will be proven guilty. While the law provides for innocence until proven guilt even in an ongoing trial until an admission of guilt is heard in court, neither parties have objection to it, and even then an appeals court can overturn an admission of guilt and grant a new trial.

    Also its a reasonable assumption that they dont have a permit, as if they did all those news stories would be plastering a copy of it on every piece they do about this.
    Farewell WoW Pandaland
    Intel i5 2.67 OC 3.3ghz | ATI 6950 850mhz OC 920Stable 950 Push 1000Insane

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePalidius View Post
    A. i have not claimed anything, i merely suggested it as a possibility, giving a reason as to not assume other people are correct in their claims that were unfounded in logic.
    B. there is no way to prove the non existance of a "hilarious government conspiracy."
    C. your paragraph on murderers gives my points strength.
    D. yes your last paragraph is true, for a cover up, there would have to be a multi-level government conspiracy aimed at the accused. but to suggest it is not possible is an absurdity, not the other way around. until facts disproving an existance arrise, the existance there of is a possibility. (far fetched does not equate to untrue, or impossible) this is what you call sound logic.
    The idea that something can exist simply because nobody can prove you wrong is ridiculous. It's known as the 'neener neener neener you can't tell me I'm wrong' approach to supporting an argument. I can argue that you're a space hippopotamus in a man-suit, and you can't prove me wrong.

  14. #94
    Herald of the Titans GodlyBob's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,713
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePalidius View Post
    i honestly agree with all of your claims in this post fully. in my personal opinion we should be going organic, and cooking, and fulfilling nutrient requirements with supplements. this corrects the issues with raw foods, potential gmo issues that are not yet studied, and the need to overcompensate nutritionally and eliminating a portion of obesity from over compensation in consumption.

    ---------- Post added 2011-08-06 at 01:25 PM ----------

    but that does not mean we should take away the freedom to choose to eat raw foods or any other foods for that matter. have to defend the liberty of others choices to have it for your own.
    The big problem with organic farming is that it is incredibly inefficient. If all of farmable surface of the world was converted to organic farms, we wouldn't produce enough food for our current world population. I'm not saying that we shouldn't allow some people to grow, sell or consume organic food; but suggesting 100% conversion is not exactly...philanthropic.

  15. #95
    Mechagnome Magisleeper's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    In a crawlspace in a desert near you.
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Herecius View Post
    The idea that something can exist simply because nobody can prove you wrong is ridiculous. It's known as the 'neener neener neener you can't tell me I'm wrong' approach to supporting an argument. I can argue that you're a space hippopotamus in a man-suit, and you can't prove me wrong.
    The sun is actually a lamp god left on in his college dorm. Prove that wrong please.
    Farewell WoW Pandaland
    Intel i5 2.67 OC 3.3ghz | ATI 6950 850mhz OC 920Stable 950 Push 1000Insane

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Nathiest View Post
    This and a Gag Order is not infringing on their rights becuase they had to agree to it first.
    You don't agree to a gag order, a gag order is IMPOSED upon you, hence the word order.

  17. #97
    Those of you that are not familiar, there is a perfectly good reason why us has such strict raw food trading laws. The special permits require regular vet check-up on life stock to make sure that its healthy and free from deadly bacteria. I am not entirely sure why this incident wasnt worked out in civil manner but I think those that called for the raid must of had very good reasons. You have to understand that if this was done in non accordance to protocols then a lot of heads will roll, a lot of high officials will see their careers end over this. The gag order makes it very hard to understand the full weight of the situation and what has led to it.

    By operating without proper licenses (which insure the upkeep of govt regulations for safe raw food distribution) these farms were willingly putting people's life in danger. Depending on the size of their customer base and the size of their livestock herds this could have very bad results. The more livestock a farm has the harder it is to maintain each individual animal healthy. Imagine if they have 500 cows producing milk, its not that hard to overlook one that is sick and giving off contaminated milk which is pooled in with the rest of the milk making all of it unhealthy, also we all know that milk spoils fairly fast which means that the containers used to store it must be very thoroughly cleaned, inspected and maintained. The pasteurization process goes a long way to prevent spread of most common food-borne illnesses.


    here is one good example of how food can be contaminated if not properly maintained (in this case on a Mexican pepper farm) can lead to outbreaks of illness.

    2008
    • 2008 United States salmonellosis outbreak. As of August 28, 2008, from April 10, 2008, the rare Saintpaul serotype of Salmonella enterica caused at least 1442 cases of salmonellosis food poisoning in 43 states throughout the United States, the District of Columbia, and Canada. As of July 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration suspects that the contaminated food product is a common ingredient in fresh salsa, such as raw tomato, fresh jalapeño pepper, fresh serrano pepper, and fresh cilantro. It is the largest reported salmonellosis outbreak in the United States since 1985. During a House subcommittee hearing into food supply safety and the recent salmonella contamination, a top federal official told panel members that agencies have found the source of the contamination after it showed up in yet another batch of Mexican-grown peppers. Adam Acheson, Food and Drug Administration associate commissioner for foods, said the FDA tracked the salmonella positive test to serrano peppers and irrigation water at a packing facility in Nuevo León, Mexico, and a grower in Tamaulipas. New Mexico and Texas were proportionally the hardest hit by far, with 49.7 and 16.1 reported cases per million, respectively. The greatest number of reported cases have occurred in Texas (384 reported cases), New Mexico (98), Illinois (100), and Arizona (49). There have been at least 203 reported hospitalizations linked to the outbreak, it has caused at least one death, and it may have been a contributing factor in at least one additional death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) maintains that "it is likely many more illnesses have occurred than those reported." If applying a previous CDC estimated ratio of non-reported salmonellosis cases to reported cases (38.6:1), one would arrive at an estimated 40,273 illnesses from this outbreak
    Some more examples

    1994
    • Salmonella in ice cream from Schwan's Sales Enterprises of Marshall, Minnesota. The outbreak was confirmed to have sickened 740 people in 30 states and is suspected to have sickened over 3,000 additional people in as many as 41 states. The contamination occurred when raw, unpasteurized eggs were hauled in a tanker truck that later carried pasteurized ice cream to the Schwan's plant. The ice cream premix wasn't pasteurized again after delivery to the plant
    1985
    • Listeria in cheese in Southern California. The largest number of food poisoning deaths recorded in recent U.S. history is traced to Mexican-style soft cheese. Of the 142 reported cases, there were 47 deaths, including 19 stillbirths and 10 infant deaths. Jalisco Cheese produced the contaminated cheese. The cause was though of as preventable if they had followed proper procedures in production.[40]
    • Salmonella in milk from the Hillfarm Dairy in Melrose Park, Ill. (a suburb of Chicago) causes 16,284 confirmed, and possibly as many as 200,000 cases of food poisoning in six Midwest states. The tainted milk was responsible for two deaths and may have been related to the death of 4 or 5 others with some counts being as high as 12. It is considered the worst outbreak of Salmonella food poisoning in U.S. history.
    Like I said we dont know the full details of the raid but the FDA regulations do exist for a good reason.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Dazzy View Post
    You don't agree to a gag order, a gag order is IMPOSED upon you.
    You agree to the right of law inforcement to enforce such a thing the moment you become a citizen. Gag orders are typically enforced to avoid contaminating a jury or causing an activist storm of crazyness, which is what appears to be happening here.

  19. #99
    I'm reminded of the scene in "Liar, Liar" where one of Jim Carrey's clients is on the line because he got arrested, and wonders what he should do. Carrey's honest response to the often arrested client? "QUIT BREAKING THE LAW, ASSHOLE!!"

    Food safety is a big issue in the world. Every time there's an outbreak of salmonella or e coli, people question why the government didn't do more to detect it or prevent it. Part of prevention is requiring that food producers are open to inspections and follow regulations meant to make food safe to eat. These guys wanted to run an illegal business so they could avoid those regulations, which put their customers and the general public at risk. It's not fair to all of the dairy producers in California who play by the rules that these guys ignored the law for their own profit. Now they'll pay the price, or not, depending on what gets decided at trial.

  20. #100
    It's sad that the "land of the free" has been so inundated with people who think they know best for everyone else that we enjoy far fewer freedoms than most European nations.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •