(June 3, 2013 at 5:05 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: Yeah this guy is a pretty typical example of the country bumpkin idiots that comprise any of the areas of my state that aren't in the cities.
This comes to one of those libertarian-vs-liberal things. "Do we let them poison themselves or try to stop them?" Well, truth be told, if they want to sell it, then by all means, let them sell it. But first, they need to have their bottles labeled VERY CLEARLY what the dangers of drinking raw milk are. ALL the dangers, too, on EVERY bottle. If they think they should be allowed to sell their product WITHOUT warning labels, then no. No, you should not be allowed to do that, because then it's just outright negligence of responsibility. If you sell a product that could be hazardous to health and safety then it needs to be very labeled as such, and failure to do so should result in massive fucking fines. It's all very well and good to say "if people want to subject themselves to risk then they should be allowed to," and, sure, they should be. But only if they KNOW it's a risk. If you just let guys like this sell raw milk and all that's on the bottle is just "this is raw milk!" and nothing else, then people might go "...Well, maybe it tastes better," without having a chance to learn what the dangers are. Fuck knows I dunno what the hell kinda dangers are entailed in non-pasteurized milk, I can't exactly say I've dedicated any portion of my life to studying fucking milk production, so if I were to buy a bottle of it, and it didn't have a listed warning, I'd be buying something that the seller KNEW could be dangerous, but failed to inform me that it was so, and the seller has a responsibility to inform the purchasing parties of the risks involved.
Worth re-posting.
