House panel OK`s raw milk sales !!

springvalley · #1 02/18/12, 08:09 PM

DesMoines Iowa, Raw milk could be sold and marketed in Iowa under a bill that unanimously passed through a House subcommittee Monday.
Supporters of the legislation, including two Republicans and one Democrat on the panel, framed it as a question of personal freedom and comsumer choice.
Opponents said the potential problems of consuming raw milk should persuade lawmakers to keep it outlawed. (This was part of the article out of Iowa Farmer Today Feb. 18) So we shall see what happens in Iowa now, if they go the way of Wisconsin or not. > Thanks Marc

copperhead46 · #2 02/18/12, 08:12 PM

Good for them, I hope all the other states follow suite

haypoint · #3 02/18/12, 08:22 PM

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/
today's news.

billooo2 · #4 02/19/12, 08:25 AM

It loks like more and more people are getting tired of the 'nanny state' mentality.

Jim-mi · #5 02/19/12, 08:53 AM

Yet another example of the smoke and mirrors type distraction from the real problems...

Guess we need the poly-ticians to pontificate about how eating RAW apples is/can be bad for our health................

And those same poly-ticians will ,at election time, look you in the eye and say "Look what We did for YOU".

willow_girl · #6 02/19/12, 09:02 AM

Let's hope they rescind the seat belt laws next!

I want to be free to drive without my seat belt!

texican · #7 02/19/12, 10:26 AM

Would be supersweet if they'd include a zero liability clause, giving a complete blanket of immunity to producers, and zero rights to sue, to any potential consumer that gets sick or dies. That'd be the ticket. Then we can work our way through other pesky food safety laws.... that costs millions if not billions.... Eliminate all of em, re-educate the American public that they have to take an active part in the equation, and learn how to start taking risks again.

springvalley · #8 02/19/12, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

Let's hope they rescind the seat belt laws next!

I want to be free to drive without my seat belt!

Willow, does the seat belt rumple your DRESS on the way to milk cows? hehe. > Marc

Cheribelle · #9 02/19/12, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by springvalley

Willow, does the seat belt rumple your DRESS on the way to milk cows? hehe. > Marc

Jim-mi · #10 02/19/12, 03:24 PM

To explain the apple thing;

ALL apples must be cooked in the gober-mint pot . . . So there fore 9 different agencies
can grab a piece of the action before the product gets into YOUR hands..........

And if you speak up against this you are UN American . . . . . . . .and may be wisked off to prison.............

Always always remember that the gober-mint knows what is best for us pee-ons.....

mountainlaurel · #11 02/19/12, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

Let's hope they rescind the seat belt laws next!

I want to be free to drive without my seat belt!

And you should be. It doesn't affect anyolne else but yourself if you chose not to wear seatbelts. It would be different if it affected soomeone else, but as long as it's yourself only, why should the government have any say?
They might be able to mandate it up to 18 years of age, but after that, it's no one elses business but yourself.

oz in SC V2.0 · #12 02/19/12, 04:43 PM

Good to see personal freedom win out.

Also good to take note of those who favor Nanny Statism.

willow_girl · #13 02/19/12, 05:52 PM

Quote:

And you should be. It doesn't affect anyolne else but yourself if you chose not to wear seatbelts. It would be different if it affected soomeone else, but as long as it's yourself only, why should the government have any say?

If I'm in a wreck and injured, the government is going to have to pay for my medical care. (I'm insured via Tricare.) If I'm disabled, I'll be eligible for SSDI.

This is the problem with having the government serve as an insurer: it creates a great incentive for it to make laws to reduce its liability, even though that curtails liberty.

A secondary problem is that the government also is beholden to special interests. Don't you think insurance companies lobbied for seat belt laws, knowing they would reduce liability claims? And politicians took their money and did their bidding.

Switching gears ... what happens when an uninsured person gets sick from drinking raw milk? Should the taxpayer be required to pick up the tab? Personally, I think the producer ought to be required to carry liability insurance. It's all well and good to say, "Oh, just have the customer sign a waiver" ... but at the end of the day, someone has to pay. Who should it be?

oz in SC V2.0 · #14 02/19/12, 07:03 PM

Do you feel the same way for raw seafood?

People who eat feral hogs or deer?

Should every person who snow skis have insurance?

I do find it refreshing to see people now so concerned about the cost of government...I am sure they are appalled at the cost of Obamacare...

willow_girl · #15 02/19/12, 09:21 PM

Obamacare appears to be a way to attempt to contain costs, by forcing as many people as possible to purchase insurance so the government isn't stuck with the tab.

oz in SC V2.0 · #16 02/19/12, 09:22 PM

To the tune of a trillion dollars...

Wow,you mean you like THAT government spending???

Shocked am I.

Paquebot · #17 02/19/12, 09:55 PM

As long as nobody dies, let everyone have whatever they want even though dying may be cheaper. This one is going to cost somebody some big bucks before it's over.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...break-expands/

Martin

arabian knight · #18 02/19/12, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paquebot

As long as nobody dies, let everyone have whatever they want even though dying may be cheaper. This one is going to cost somebody some big bucks before it's over.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/0...break-expands/

Martin

Unless they do what Indiana has done in their raw milk bill.
HB 1129 now includes an amendment requiring all raw milk sold in Indiana to carry a label saying it is not for human consumption.

willow_girl · #19 02/19/12, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oz in SC V2.0

To the tune of a trillion dollars...

Wow,you mean you like THAT government spending???

Shocked am I.

There is a lot of controversy over what it will cost. I am not sufficiently equipped to analyze the many (agenda-driven) opinions on the subject.

But suffice to say that we have a real problem with healthcare costs in this country, in part because we have a system that is geared to drive up costs (because higher costs generate higher profits).

Personally, I think our country may have missed the boat in terms of getting a handle on the problem, and likely as not, we'll spend ourselves into insolvency with patchwork solutions like Obamacare.

billooo2 · #20 02/20/12, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

If I'm in a wreck and injured, the government is going to have to pay for my medical care. (I'm insured via Tricare.) If I'm disabled, I'll be eligible for SSDI.

This is the problem with having the government serve as an insurer: it creates a great incentive for it to make laws to reduce its liability, even though that curtails liberty.

A secondary problem is that the government also is beholden to special interests. Don't you think insurance companies lobbied for seat belt laws, knowing they would reduce liability claims? And politicians took their money and did their bidding.

Switching gears ... what happens when an uninsured person gets sick from drinking raw milk? Should the taxpayer be required to pick up the tab? Personally, I think the producer ought to be required to carry liability insurance. It's all well and good to say, "Oh, just have the customer sign a waiver" ... but at the end of the day, someone has to pay. Who should it be?

I don't know what the current status is.....but many years ago, the citizens of Massachusetts got people to sign petitions.....and got a referendum on the state ballot.......and repealed the seat belt law.

As I said, I do not know what the current status is......