From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics,alt.politics.trump
Subject: Re: Because testing milk for safety is which: waste, or
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 21:33:21 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Skeeter OG <invalid@none.com> wrote:
> In article <vu99nf$1m1vc$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
> says...
>>
>> On 2025-04-22 16:39, Skeeter OG wrote:
>>> In article <vu984g$1kpjj$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On 2025-04-22 16:13, Skeeter OG wrote:
>>>>> In article <vu93nt$1gtg2$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
>>>>> says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 14:43, Skeeter OG wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <vu920d$1f8fm$4@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 14:12, Skeeter OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <vu8vhj$1ctqu$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-04-22 13:39, Skeeter OG wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <vu8s2e$196cb$3@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com
>>>>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ' The Food and Drug Administration is suspending a quality control
>>>>>>>>>>>> program for testing of fluid milk and other dairy products due to
>>>>>>>>>>>> reduced capacity in its food safety and nutrition division, according to
>>>>>>>>>>>> an internal email seen by Reuters.'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-fda-suspends-milk-quality-tests-amid-workforce-cuts-2025-04-21/?ref=upstract.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But no problem for you, MAGAts, huh?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'The suspension is another disruption to the nation's food safety
>>>>>>>>>>>> programs after the termination and departure of 20,000 employees of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, as part
>>>>>>>>>>>> of President Donald Trump's effort to shrink the federal workforce.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No one had an issue with milk before the regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 'We are living in a time when many see ?deregulation? as a goal in
>>>>>>>>>> itself. Red tape is obnoxious and counterproductive, and government
>>>>>>>>>> should just leave businesses alone. That goes for an expanding array of
>>>>>>>>>> consumer choices. When it comes to food, for example, an odd combination
>>>>>>>>>> of the crunchy left and libertarian right now bridle at laws limiting
>>>>>>>>>> their right to access ?natural? commodities, like raw milk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I only made it to the second page without gagging. There Blum explains
>>>>>>>>>> how milk was often adulterated in the late 19th century. It was watered
>>>>>>>>>> down, and chalk or plaster powder was mixed in to get the color right.
>>>>>>>>>> To replace the layer of cream on top, pureed calf brains could be used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...In the case of milk, formaldehyde was a favored option. Commercial
>>>>>>>>>> products such as ?Preservaline? hit the market for precisely this
>>>>>>>>>> purpose. Added to fresh milk, it could prevent curdling for days, the
>>>>>>>>>> same way it could preserve dead bodies. Sadly, it didn?t have quite the
>>>>>>>>>> positive effect on the living children who consumed it. Clusters of
>>>>>>>>>> child deaths in various cities in the late 1890s turned public attention
>>>>>>>>>> to what was being put into milk. Blum suggests dozens of children died,
>>>>>>>>>> particularly those in orphanages and hospitals, which bought the
>>>>>>>>>> cheapest supplies.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For milk, a solution existed: pasteurization. It was already mandatory
>>>>>>>>>> in some countries, but U.S. producers resisted on the grounds of cost
>>>>>>>>>> and hassle. No, it would not allow old milk to stay shelf stable for
>>>>>>>>>> weeks without refrigeration (something some of the dairy firms were
>>>>>>>>>> obviously seeking when they used formaldehyde). But it would save
>>>>>>>>>> consumers from the risks of salmonella, listeria, campylobacter (then
>>>>>>>>>> known as ?infant cholera?)?not to mention formaldehyde itself.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Did I make you grep all that? The fact is there are to
>>>>>>>>> many regulations. Do you really think with our technology
>>>>>>>>> that they wont keep making good milk? Moron.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "grep" it? No.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Look it up in order to show you how stupid you are? Sure!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you really think that companies can be trusted to act in the best
>>>>>>>> interest of safety when they can make more money by doing otherwise?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They still have to have a product people will buy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And that was true before safety regulations...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...but they clearly adulterated products then.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a new age. Relax.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that people and greed are any different?
>>>
>>> I never said anything about that.
>>
>> But it's what we need regulations to protect us FROM, doofus.
>>
>> It isn't TECHNOLOGY that keeps us safe.
>>
>> It is companies being required to make safe products...
>>
>> ...by regulation.
>
> True but there to many driving the prices up.
Enforcement laxity also drives prices up too, since it has allowed
corporations to pay their way out of violations, without admitting guilt
(avoiding civil lawsuits), and with no corporate officers ever spending a
single day in jail for their crimes.
Likewise, make lawyers more accountable too: I can recall when traditional
âworkmanshipâ clauses got struck down as legally unenforceable. The legal
standard became that all workers had to be assumed to be morons who must be
given profoundly explicit go/nogo instructions, instead of the workers
being considered to be adequately knowledgeable craftsmen who knew what
theyâre doing, including what was good/bad in addition to the formal
critical/mjor/minor requirements.
-hh