Banner
    Raw Milk Dairy Organic Pastures Sues FDA Over Ban On Selling Foodborne Illnesses Across State Lines
    By Hank Campbell | December 18th 2012 06:10 PM | 48 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Hank

    I'm the founder of Science 2.0® and co-author of "Science Left Behind".

    A wise man once said Darwin had the greatest idea anyone...

    View Hank's Profile
    When does a business that has carefully positioned itself as more natural and wholesome and healthy and not at all like Big Ag suddenly look a lot like Big Ag?

    When the FDA tells them they can only make people sick in their own state. Then the corporate lawyers come out in force.

    Organic Pastures, America’s largest raw milk dairy and cause of numerous recalls just in the last year, would like to be able to make children ill across state lines and so they have filed suit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to force a change in the current law - which bans sales of raw milk across state lines but otherwise leaves it to states to allow businesses to poison its citizens or not. 

    I can't believe raw milk is not illegal for anyone under the age of 18 who hasn't signed a disclaimer and shown ID upon purchasing it so it actually warms my heart that the FDA is at least doing something to protect people.  Organic Pastures says demand is growing and they want to meet that demand - and demand is growing.  Gullible consumers who think 'organic' food is in any way better for them are also inclined to shop at Whole Foods and buy raw milk and believe Senator Dianne Feinstein can outlaw evil. They have been educated by advertising that tells them science is out to kill them but alternative medicine and homeopathy is healthy.

    According to the FDA, 20 states prohibit sales of raw milk. California allows it, of course, despite CDC concerns and the fact that Claravale Farm of San Benito County, the other raw milk dairy in the state, also just came out of quarantine due to a campylobacter bacteria shutdown. The same state that bans plastic bags and cigars in restaurants thinks anti-science hippies giving their kids foodborne diseases is fundamental 'choice'.
     
    The new litigation theater by Organic Pastures is just plain old big business economics and nothing to do with healthier people, despite what raw milk peddlers claim.  When a company has $10 million a year in revenue and wants that to go up, the easy solution is to find gullible people elsewhere. It is far less costly than trying to make new gullible people in their own state - and so they would like the FDA to ease up on pesky laws that stop national recalls. But let's look at their state recalls over the last year.

    In November of 2011, 5 kids were infected with E. coli O157:H7 after drinking milk from Organic Pastures. It led to a recall and quarantine. Then Organic Pastures had to recall everything but its cheese again after Campylobacter bacteria was found in its foods in May. The California Public Health Department listed 10 people who came down with Campylobacter from January through April 30th after drinking Organic Pastures raw milk, including a 9 month old baby.

    In September, campylobacter  was detected in Organic Pastures products again.

    How does Organic Pastures’ owner Mark McAfee explain trying to force the FDA to give him a bigger market to make children ill?  

    “The entire thing (producing raw milk) is a learning process,” he told Cookson Beecher at Food Safety News. “No one completely understands bacteria and how they interplay with humans."

    What? Learning process?  No one understands bacteria? No one in his crackpot company understands anyway.  Sane people have understood exactly why pasteurization saves lives  for the last 70 years. 

    Comments

    Interesting satire. You may want to include sources that show the real scenario so people don't get confused.

    Try putting some science into your article, instead of nothing but ignorant witticisms.

    Hank
    You're in luck - this had both. Now why don't you stop trying to poison people so you can make money evangelizing a health fad.
    Despite your poor powers of expression (or perhaps, more accurately, due to them?), you appear to recognize your article is full of stupid remarks that you intended to appear clever or smart, starting with the headline::
    "Raw Milk Dairy Organic Pastures Sues FDA Over Ban On Selling Foodborne Illnesses Across State Lines"

    Within a few lines you devolve into outright slander, fabricating motivations and attributing them to others:
    "Organic Pastures, America’s largest raw milk dairy and cause of numerous recalls just in the last year, would like to be able to make children ill across state lines [...]"
    It's wonderful that in your schizophrenic world you can just put words in others' mouths, but in the journalistic world you have to actually quote people to establish their motivations/goals/&c. Otherwise, you are only left with reasonable speculation based on what they did. Where did Organic Pastures say they wanted to be able to make children ill across state line?

    Your poor powers of reasoning & judgment are further evinced as the article continues:
    "Gullible consumers who think 'organic' food is in any way better for them are also inclined to shop at Whole Foods and buy raw milk and believe Senator Dianne Feinstein can outlaw evil. "
    This is a complete logical fallacy, and hardly deserves to be described as a coherent thought

    And so on, and so on. Your article (like your response to my comment) is one big unintelligible & arbitrary assumption, dressed up in sensational & sarcastic disbelief. But there's no actual science. None whatsoever. You have summarized a few other reports about recalls, but provided no scientific insight.

    Why don't you try researching the subject first, or perhaps getting some real world experience about something before you try to talk about it as if you knew anything? Hey, you might even learn something about being a mammal.

    Hank
    So what part are you in denial about?  That they were the subject of numerous recalls and illnesses - so, evil state and federal agencies are out go get them - or that adding even more people would put more people at risk?

    P.S. Stop using words you clearly do not know the meaning to - you are trying to be clever and make a point and come off reading like you copied and pasted insults with no context from somewhere else and it makes you seem stupid - the word for that, which you probably will also use incorrectly in your next comment - is 'irony'.
    Those are your arguments & observation (& mistakes). In order to understand what someone else is saying, you have to actually read (and understand) what it is that they have said.

    P.P.S.: Just because you don't know the meaning to a word (such as "irony"), doesn't mean your readers--or other educated people who happen to use it or see it--also don't. Try picking up a book and learning the meanings to these words you don't know.

    Think about all the illness that big business has caused people; raw milk is 30 times safer than Big Agra products. I much rather feed my children raw milk that I know right where it comes from than a mass produced, hormone injected, antibiotic feed, GMO laden cow that had to be ultra pasteurized to get rid of all the poop that has never been scooped from the 3x7 foot stall they are confined to 24/7. If you endorse animal cruelty and varying unsafe conditions (as long as you don’t see it) that is up to you, but to think for one second that I will oblique myself to your blundering non-journalistic-self-indulgent-point-of-view you are sadly mistaking. This is not journalism, this is only an opinion article—that’s it. As for me I rather not have milk in my home if it is 90% puss as is the case in pasteurized milk that you obviously endorse. How many time was this “multiple” recalls because I only have heard of one. What a foolish article.

    Hank
    The fact that you have only heard of one - and create a reality where only one exists - when I listed the dates for all of them just in the last year and just in the plant that is suing to be allowed to sell in other states, tells us you are not willing to think critically.  You invented a perfect world for a very dangerous product and demonize a product that is safer.  You might as well pray to cure cancer rather than listen to a doctor. It's the same logic.
    Please! Okay, well one of the above listed cites has shown NO LINK to the milk:
    “The California Department of Food and Agriculture said laboratory samples of Organic Pastures raw milk had not detected the strain of E. coli that sickened the children. Samples of the milk actually consumed by the children also didn't reveal E.coli."(i)
    So the only thing that these kids had consumed the same--or thought to consume the same is raw milk? Seems more like a witch hunt than anything.

    Now let's look at this one:
    "In an email to Food Safety News, McAfee expressed frustration with the way the samples taken by the state were collected and stored.
    “It is very possible that the one raw cream sample that tested positive for Campylobacter was contaminated at the lab,” he asserted.
    In contrast, he said, all of the samples tested at the dairy’s lab came up negative for the bacteria." (ii)

    So the way the CDC handled the samples were in question during the testing? Im going to say that this is a maybe first…
    Here is the last one noted:
    “Mark McAfee, co-owner of Organic Pastures, called CDPH’s measures to remove the raw milks from the shelves as “not much of a recall” since most of it is no longer on store shelves.
    “There’s no milk on the shelves to recall,” McAfee told Food Safety News last week.
    However, the retail list names more retailers than the handful in the L.A. area that McAfee said had received the recalled products.”
    So the last one was a border line recall…
    Let’s look at this recall across the US and Canada brought to you by big Agra!
    http://www.globalnews.ca/timeline+of+events+2012+e+coli+outbreak+and+mea...
    or
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/20/california-supplier-recalls-lettuce...
    or
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/wegmans-salad-recall-e-coli_n_2...
    or
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/03/trader-joes-recall-butter-chick...
    I think this is more a food safety issue and not a type of food issue. Any food item could be unsafe—it is the handling of such food that determines that safety.

    And lastly, I think you said yourself that you are okay after being fed raw milk growing up… Have you sued your parents for the potential life threatening position they put you in growing up?
    It is really funny how up until the 1800’s that pasteurization was not practiced. Only when dairy farms became so large that they shipped to large cities far away from the farm was this process and refrigeration necessary.

    i http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/raw-milk-recall_n_1097831.html
    ii http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/05/this-is-going-to-be/#.UNFIfXdvCSo

    Hank
    Huffington Post is not a source. Even Wikipedia is better than HuffPo, who are sort of famous for embracing woo and crackpot nonsense because they don't know or care about science, they just like controversy and social science voodoo.

    But this...
    It is really funny how up until the 1800’s that pasteurization was not practiced.
    ...means you don't understand the history of science or medicine so I suppose I have to be nice to you and help a little. Invoking that our ancestors did not use pasteurization (and it was the 20th century when it was implemented across the board) would be like going to an auto engineering website and saying cars are evil because no one used them before the 1800s. Or that computers are evil because our ancestors wrote with chalk on slate.

    So answer your own question; did you sue your parents for giving you pasteurized milk?  Or a tomato grown in the last 2,000 years?  Or any grain? Or any meat?  None of those things, zero, are like your ancestors ate in the 1800s.
    Swiss government evaluation of complementary and alternative medicines, gives a massive boost to the growing body of research underpinning the therapeutic effects of homeopathic medicine. The Society’s research consultant Rachel Roberts said the report also dismissed the claims of the only major systematic review ever to conclude that homeopathy’s effects are due to placebo, the controversial Shang meta-analysis, published in the Lancet in 2005 and heralded as “the end of homeopathy”.
    Even though that study attracted criticism from international researchers due to its poor quality, both in terms of the methodology used and how the study was reported, it has been widely quoted by anti homeopathy campaigners as “proof’ that homeopathy is placebo.
    Rachel, who is also the chief executive of the Homeopathy Research Institute, said: “This is great news for scientists who are committed to objective and accurate reporting of homeopathy research, as well as for the six million people in the UK who choose to use homeopathy as part of their healthcare.

    Gerhard Adam
    So the Swiss government are now a research body?
    Mundus vult decipi
    Thor Russell
    It seems like this is not satire, http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/065njdoe.asp

    Says a lot about the Swiss govt etc?
    Thor Russell
    Gerhard Adam
    LOL ... I can't wait until these morons discover microbes.  ;)
    Mundus vult decipi
    Hank
    I wish we could sell advertising with the premise that people just give us money and magic happens.
    I agree with you on raw milk, but it was very unscientific to lump people interested in organic food with raw milk drinkers. Science is based on fact, and your made your assertion based on unfounded assumption.

    Hank
    You think there are raw milk proponents who also do not get caught up in organic food and anti-GMO marketing?  Science is based on fact but that does not mean there are no exceptions - gravity does not work the way most people think it works at the very large and very small levels, for example.  It is not unscientific to say you will fall if you jump off a building, though.

    If organic food people want to seem less dangerous, they could speak out against the raw sprout and raw milk market with the same vitriol they do conventional food.
    Again, you're making unscientific assertions.

    I'm not saying that raw milk people don't prefer organic foods. But not all people who prefer organic, drink raw milk.

    You need to separate the two, because you're overgeneralizing, which is definitely not scientific.

    And yes, many of us who prefer organic foods do speak out against raw milk. Many of us are heavily interested in food safety, as well as sustainable agriculture.

    Regardless, the point I made is valid: you're overgeneralizing, which is not very scientific.

    Hank
    Nooooo, you are saying I said something I did not say - that is what we call a straw man. I never once said all organic food purchasers drink raw milk. Not once, not in 2,000 articles, and not in a whole book.
    Dude, you don't understand the first thing about how to make a point, support it, or draw any kind of logical conclusion from evidence.

    You're making a logical fallacy, associating people who like ORGANIC food (organic food is food produced without the use of synthetic chemicals such as fertilizers or pesticides, and without GMOs) with people who like RAW food (which is food that has been minimally processed). Not all ORGANIC FOOD is raw, and not all RAW FOOD is organic. Raw milk is a kind of RAW FOOD. The people who support ORGANIC FOOD do not, by definition, support RAW MILK. Thus they do not have to (and do not all) support RAW MILK.

    It's also not their job to do what you apparently think is yours, and decry nature's perfect food.

    Shelly is right in her assertion that your reasoning is unscientific (illogical, really). You should learn to admit when you're wrong, and correct your mistakes, if you care anything about ever (maybe?) getting an intelligent readership.

    Hank
    Well, you are not helping in that intelligent readership department because you refuse to read what I actually wrote, you read what you want me to have written; I did not say all organic people are raw food believers.  But you are contending raw food believers are not organic shoppers, and instead buy primarily conventional food with pesticides and GMOs - I'd love to see your basis for that claim.

    P.S. Don't call people 'dude' and expect to be taken seriously. Go read ThinkProgress.com or PacificStandard.com or some other crackpot site if you want to be coddled in some special 'I am young so I can talk like an idiot' bubble.
    I read exactly what you wrote. In fact, it was so stupid, I cited it independently in my own comment, which was made before I even read Shelley's.

    Yes, your observation is so wrong that multiple readers have called you out on it, .

    And that's all you can say, "Don't call me dude"? Get back to us when you can form an argument, or maybe a sentence, DUDE.

    Prescription drugs are always yummy and milk is a product of the devil?

    Hank
    No, but milk is a cultural product and not something humans need after they learn to walk.

    Are you contending raw milk can cure diseases now?  It's not a surprise, I am just asking. Are all drug companies and scientists who work in medicine evil too?
    @Hank Campbell,

    You are implying that pills are cures, when they are actually part of an ongoing population reduction and control system!

    Raw Milk has "Nutrients" that are not found in prescription DRUGS! Processed milk is just as it implies.......processed? It is that process that destroys the milk and makes it impossible for the body to digest correctly! Do you know what homogenization is? Do you know why it is bad for humans after processing? Please do not imply that pills are good for people. Many studys have shown how powerful placebos may be! Today's processed foods have left people mineral and vitamin deficient! Which is where most illness's arise from! Disease is a word that describes a state of mind.......dis.....ease!!!

    Raw milk does the body good........store bought milk........NOT THE SAME!!!!

    Hank
    You are implying that pills are cures, when they are actually part of an ongoing population reduction and control system!
    Sane raw milk proponents - if there are any - are now doing a collective facepalm because you have placed yourself in the conspiratorial crackpot fringe and will drag them right along with you.

    Please go comment on Mercola.com or some other goofball site where you can be exploited for financial gain by the 'we are willing to believe you' snakeoil salesmen.
    Gerhard Adam
    Mundus vult decipi
    Right on! This was what I was thinking reading this nonsense that this dude wrote! HAHAHH!

    Campbell's article is pretty much equal to those extolling the magical_beans effect of raw milk, only far, far on the other side. If he ever decides he wants people to take his writing seriously he'll start by not titling it like a one-sided rant...and when he continues tapping out his thoughts, he would do well to consider his readers with IQs higher than 25.

    Hank
    You got as much wrong as can be wrong - there is no magic, but raw milk people insist there is.  There is no rant in noting that a business that has been shut down multiple times for hurting people wanting to broaden its market is a bad idea.  Like making kids sick?  Give them raw milk.

    Look, I grew up on raw milk but that is the problem with you and accepting anecdotes as evidence - just because I grew up on it does not mean it is safe. How many times did it get me sick?  I have no idea but it is clear that kids who do not grow up on farms who are suddenly fed this stuff as part of some rich parent health fad are placed in harm's way.  I am not saying it should be banned, just like I would not ban cigarettes - but parents should not be able to give it to children. Just like cigarettes.
    @Hank from the city,

    You can continue drinking your diet soda's and I will continue to drink my RAW MILK! Next you will be telling people that aspartame is good for human consumption?

    You must think that Fluoride is good too?

    Hank
    In your next comment, would you be kind enough to list all of your beliefs about how science is out to kill us? Then I can deal with them all at once.

    Please tell me where you shop for food, if you give your kids vaccines and a few other things.  Then I will magically tell you how you vote.
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    Please tell me where you shop for food, if you give your kids vaccines and a few other things.  Then I will magically tell you how you vote.
    Well that might be the case in America but it definitely is not the case in Australia. Just as many right wing people as left wing people here believe that vaccines are dangerous for their kids and that organic food is healthier than non-organic food. Unlike me, and I vote left wing. Why are you so obsessed with the political voting of people's scientific or non-scientific based belief systems? So what if they are correlated, they are definitely not causal! Who even gives a stuff? Why don't you just fight ignorance with scientific evidence? It makes you just seem like a political animal, not a scientist who is owning and running a science outreach site, when you are constantly seen to be making these political comments and embarrassingly flogging this dead horse in public while NEVER providing any evidence to back your claims. Surely its not just to sell your book is it?  If you delete this comment then you are proving my  point to the people that managed to read it and also to me.
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    Hank
    2% of our audience is Australian and mine personally is even less so, sure, I write for Americans.  The rest of your comment is you making strawmen points to knock down.  But of course political beliefs are causal to science ones because science is not its own constituency.

    You have this artificial notion about the nature of scientists just like you do about science - but in the case of scientists it is their own fault, for perpetuating the myth of the super-rational, scientific method robot - but that person gets absolutely nothing accomplished in policy because they fight billions of dollars in marketing campaigns aimed at gullible people.

    So, yes, people who are poisoning kids to make a buck are going to get derision and ridicule and jeering and contempt rather than me spending the first 1,000 words of every article rewriting the same article I have written a hundred times - the reverse question of me can be asked of you. You object that I attack crackpots but why do you defend every single crackpot you find?
    Bonny Bonobo alias Brat
    the reverse question of me can be asked of you. You object that I attack crackpots but why do you defend every single crackpot you find?
    I'm not aware of either objecting that you attack crackpots or of defending every single crackpot I find. Do you have any evidence please? I am simply keen to keep things as scientific as possible here, on this wonderful and quite unique scientific outreach site that you have created and deserve a lot of credit for doing so. 

    I still believe that scientific evidence is the best way to support or disprove any cause, whether it is political or crackpottery and I don't think that it has to be 'super-rational, scientific method robot', just good science. I am still really looking forward to reading your and Alex's book when it arrives, the reviews I have read are saying its very entertaining and informative. I hope it has plenty of scientific evidence to support your claims though :)
    My latest forum article 'Australian Researchers Discover Potential Blue Green Algae Cause & Treatment of Motor Neuron Disease (MND)&(ALS)' Parkinsons's and Alzheimer's can be found at http://www.science20.com/forums/medicine
    There are raw milk fanatics who insist it's magic, as there are raw milk detractors who insist that a firm like OP is merely wanting to make kids sick on their product. C'mon, Hank, can't you see the similarity? Neither extreme is worth taking seriously.

    Hank
    Adults believing in magic and harming themselves, sure - yayyyyy, diversity - but kids are inordinately impacted by these crackpot parents.  Like I said, I grew up on the stuff so I can't say it never harmed me or it did because kids get sick.  But if we know it can make kids sick it should be a penalty.

    We penalize a pet owner who leaves their dog in the car with the windows rolled up more than we penalize parents who go out of their way to try and make their kids ill.  That is not right.
    Could it be possible..... that this "media attempted hype", may actually be an attempt..... for more control........and nothing to do with (actual) HEALTH?

    Could it be that simple for the Corporate Elite Controlled Media....... HANK???

    I have consumed 100's of gallons of raw milk, and none of it has ever made me as sick!

    People get sick when they're immune system is weak.........usually from not eating healthy foods and getting enough oxygen! I don't require my foods to be processed..........the FDA does!

    Hank
    I have consumed 100's of gallons of raw milk, and none of it has ever made me as sick!
    I see your point and I appreciate you standing up to the Big Pharm-Media Complex. 90% of smokers never get lung cancer so you are certainly correct in letting your children smoke cigarettes. Far fewer will become alcoholics so whisky for your pre-schooler is okay and a negligible number of accidental handgun deaths happen so a child with a loaded pistol laying around is fine as well.

    We need more independent free thinkers like you!
    Gerhard Adam
    Turning everything into a conspiracy is not helpful.

    Denying the germ theory of disease is not helpful, especially when it is presented from the perspective of living "right" versus the wrong way.

    Such perspectives are merely a hindrance and an annoyance to whatever legitimate scientific questions may actually arise from such controversies. 
    I have consumed 100's of gallons of raw milk, and none of it has ever made me as sick!
    Such a statement is simply irrelevant, since I doubt that even you are foolish enough to believe that sweeping generalizations can be made from a single anecdote.  Moreover, it is the epitome of foolishness to presume that you are even remotely aware of your immune system's actual status [healthy or not].  In short, you are simply operating on whatever your currently belief system supports without any useful knowledge to convey to anyone.

    I certainly hope you're not foolish enough to give raw milk to a child without that parent's permission. 
    Mundus vult decipi
    WOW!!!! This is so silly I don't know where to begin!! Lets be honest here. ANY food can become containimated and make you sick. Remember the peanut butter recall? The outbreak of E Coli in spinach? In ohio we had an outbreak in watermelon!!!! We also had Tollhouse cookie dough outbreak, milk recall from Dean (a major non organic milk producer) and INFANT FORMULA!!!!! The point is we don't mandate that all food be "sterilized." or "cooked," before buying. When I buy meat, I can choose to cook it however I please. The gov't doesn't mandate that it be sold to me already processed, even though we know people have become ill from handling raw meat, and their ARE people who consume raw meat. Anyone could just as easily pastuerize the milk themselves, and I believe we need the freedom to buy fresh milk for ourselves or are famalies is OUR RIGHT. If I choose to pasturize the milk myself, or drink it raw that is MY RIGHT. Children have gotten sick and even died from eating fast food burgers and other foods that are acceptable to eat raw and you aren't whining about cracking down on those instances or saying parents need to be held accountable for feeding their children unhealthy food. Outbreaks will happen. I buy mostly organic real food. I take my kids to McDonald's on occasion. I vaccinated all 4 of my children, but will never do so again. My youngest 2 kids developed autism after being vaccinated and I thought it was a load of bull and used to defend vaccines. I even kept vaccinating even when I noticed problems because I thought it was just coincidence, or I was looking for someone or something to blame. It is heartbreaking to think I contributed and held my children down because I thought I was doing "the right thing." Sometimes you have to walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Sorry I got off tangent but you don't have to call people morons simply because you disagree. I just believe that people should have the choice and freedom to decide how to nourish themselves. A parent can choose to feed their children nothing but fast food and pizza. A parent can choose to feed their kids nothing but Tyson chicken nuggets and Kraft mac and cheese. A parent can choose real food. A parent can decide that their kids not eat sugar. Parents can choose to feed their kids many unhealthy foods even if they believe what they are doing is ok. It would be just as illogical for me to say that consumption of these foods by minors should be banned. If the immune system is healthy and strong it much less likely that a child will become seriously ill or die from drinking raw milk.

    I just think its super silly of you to equate raw milk with cigarettes. I've never had raw milk or given it to my children and I'm not sure I would. But it doesn't mean I cannot change my mind, or that someone is wrong for drinking it. If they feel the benefits outweigh the risks and feel comfortable eating it, to each their own. But saying a company is "out to poison children," is ludicrous. You know you are overblowing this issue and the gov't/FDA works hand in hand with agribusiness and questionable companies like Monsanto yet you truly believe they only have our best interest at heart. That Is far more naive and stupid than silly organic hippies drinking raw milk.

    For the record, I don't believe people who drink raw milk are silly hippies. I don't think all doctors are evil or that everyone in gov't is "out to get us."

    Hank
    I did not equate raw milk with cigarettes. I responded to someone who stupidly claimed raw milk was safe because they drank it and never got sick - that they could attribute to raw milk, anyway. I said they could let their children smoke cigarettes using that identical rationale.  I have to worry now about what raw milk consumption does to reading comprehension.
    Actually, you try to pass it off like the two things are exactly the same, in your typical specious manner. Let me refresh your memory:

    ">I have consumed 100's of gallons of raw milk, and none of it has ever made me as sick!

    I see your point and I appreciate you standing up to the Big Pharm-Media Complex. 90% of smokers never get lung cancer so you are certainly correct in letting your children smoke cigarettes."

    Remember, this is like when you mixed up organic and raw and then tried to insult someone based on your own confounding of the two? The snide (idiotic, really) non-sequitur about this person letting their kids smoke cigarettes is superfluous and ultimately damaging to your argument, as well as to your image as any kind of discompassionate scientific analyst.

    Hank
    Remember, this is like when you mixed up organic and raw and then tried to insult someone based on your own confounding of the two?
    Except that has never happened, not once in 7 years here and not in 2,000 articles.  You're inventing an alternative universe and I suggest you go to a theoretical math site for that.
    Hemp for Victory is a black-and-white (((United States government film))) made during World War II, explaining the uses of hemp, encouraging farmers to grow as much as possible.

    The film was made to encourage farmers to grow hemp for the war effort because other industrial fibers, often imported from overseas, were in short supply. The film shows a history of hemp and hemp products, how hemp is grown, and how hemp is processed into rope, cloth, cordage, and other products.

    Before 1989, the film was relatively unknown and the United States Department of Agriculture library and the Library of Congress told all interested parties that no such movie was made by the USDA or any branch of the US government. Two VHS copies were recovered and donated to the Library of Congress on 19 May 1989 by Mia Farrow, Carl Packard, and Jack Herer.

    It is best for people to live to learn.............not just repeating........left, right, left, right........is all wrong!

    Take care hank and enjoy your processed foods!

    This post serves to help me re-evaluate my place in this world as well as greatly shift my worldview.

    I'm currently on a two cheeze-whiz cans a day habit and, Mr. or Ms. PhotoMaineAC, I promise you that for 2013 I will cut back to only 1 can per day and supplement the difference with HFCS (d/t significant caloric needs the likes of which are not pertinent to this post).

    Thank you, sir or madam, and a Happy New Year to you!

    Stupid should not breed.