Talk:United States raw milk debate

message: "Advocates of drinking raw milk claim raw milk contains desirable substances" is weasel words.
The "raw milk debate" is not about whether or not such substances are actually present in raw milk. That is a testable factual claim. The debate is about the significance or lack of significance of such substances. 
If raw milk actually contains such noteworthy substances -- a verifiable claim -- then those substances should be referenced directly on the Raw milk page itself. The significance or lack of significance of those substances should be discussed here. And those substances should be named; not referred to as "substances". Is that page controlled by a cadre or cabal? Something isn't right here. 
Xkit (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: I'm not sure how notable it is to include the paper written in 1938 as a reference. Especially since it's a Pro-raw milk paper and it's included in the the Pro-pasteurization section. I'm going to remove it. If anyone can come up for a reason to keep it there, you can put the link back. http://www.realmilk.com/rawvpasteur.html
Quasispace 03:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First reference link 

message: I am aware of numerous scientific studies on the safety of raw milk, but I have not found any that address what I think is an important issue.
 
Do the studies that claim high incidence of pathogens in raw milk take into account the
environment or the methods of raising the cows at each farm? Supporters of raw milk claim that 
pasture-fed cows in clean environments have natural resistance to disease causing bacteria.
If a study lumps all raw milk producers together, how can we be certain whether any health risks are not simply explained by poor handling of the cows or the milk? In other words, is it the raw milk itself that carries high risk, or is it only the way it is handled that makes it potentially dangerous?
If anyone can find any info on this (from either side) I think it would be helpful. Dogrun81 (talk) 00:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Studies 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: A review of infections associated with raw milk contends that pasteurized milk is just as nutritious as raw milk, so that there is neither a scientific nor an aesthetic reason for choosing raw milk products.  - What exactly is meant by aesthetic, and what's it got to do with how nutritious it is?   --Random832 (contribs) 10:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How could a review of the infections contend that pasteurized milk is as nutritious as raw milk?  Either it's a review of infections or a review of nutritions.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetic? 

message: I'm trying to centralize the discussion for now at Talk:Raw_milk#Moved_to_talk_for_discussion --Ronz (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Raw milk info spamming

message: I'd like to know the purpose of the tag, and who thinks we have a problem with inappropriate links.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just restored the favorable external links which had been moved from their original location, restored the links for the opposite POV which had been (stealthily?) deleted in the process, and cleaned out the dead and commercial links. This leaves a number of favorable links that partially violate our External links policy, as well as our requirements for scientific sourcing as defined at WP:MEDRS. Do not add more links that violate these policies. The only reason some of these links can be allowed at all, even as external links, is because they are about the subject of the article and may, per WP:ELNO #2, be used. Otherwise they'd be disqualified completely. They should probably be culled further leaving only one or two that document the POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There is very little independent analysis of this issue out there.  The only source is the US Government, which opposes raw milk.  Apparently the other side of the argument cannot afford a thorough analysis of the matter.  Who can battle the unlimited resources of the govt?  It's quite unfortunate, since the government is hardly perfect in it's assessment of the healthfulness of foods.  --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 14:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: At the end of the section "Arguments of raw milk supporters" is the sentence "Even with the FDA's numbers, raw milk was cited as being no less dangerous than deli meats."  Surely this should read "no more dangerous than deli meats"? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No less dangerous than deli meats 

message: Anyone out there with full acces to ? I think it would be useful for this article as well as Homogenization (chemistry). — Scientizzle 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Access to review article  

message: Strong evidence against the view that Raw Milk is "dangerous", showing instead that it is quite beneficial, is provided here: http://realmilk.com/rawmilkoverview.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pottinger's cats (talk • contribs) 11:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages are not a forum. See WP:NOTAFORUM. You can post specific suggestions for improving this article. Citations must come from third party reliable sources. See WP:RELIABLE --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  a refutation of this article 

message: claims to be Gary Cox, a lawyer and general counsel for Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org), an organization that promotes raw milk and fringe theories about it. There will be a WP:COIN discussion on him shortly, which I'll link here.
The edits from this ip violate all the regular policies/guidelines that come up regularly here: WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE. WP:BATTLE and WP:COI apply to the specific editor as well. --Ronz (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and removed most of it. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits - NPOV, COI, and more

message: Currently the article says, "In 2007, the FDA estimated over 3,000,000 people in the US consumed raw milk on a daily basis.http://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/surveys/FoodNetExposureAtlas0607_508.pdf" I wasn't able to find the information in the report. Can someone identify it for verification, quoting the information and indicating the page number? Also, if I read it correctly, the information is from the 2006 census, so it would be better to indicate when it applied rather than when it was reported. It looks like the numbers still work out correctly. --Ronz (talk) 16:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. It fails verification and appears to be an inappropriate and misleading extrapolation of the data in the source. --Ronz (talk) 02:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: CDC estimate on number of people consuming raw milk

message: Idaho should be added to the list. I don't have a citation that I can point to but I have bought raw milk in retail grocery store in Idaho.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.51.165.93 (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  States that allow retail sales