Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
not to eat it herself.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197

On Oct 5, 11:36*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> not to eat it herself.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197

It's probably not pasteurized, is it? It's kind of "big brother" to
refuse to sell it, but I think there are warnings about pregnant women
and non-pasteurized products.

N.

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> not to eat it herself.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197


Gads, more nanny state idiocy...where is Maggie Thatcher when you need
her...!!!???

;-)


--
Best
Greg

Mark Thorson wrote:

> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> not to eat it herself.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197

These are total nuts.
--
Vilco
Mai guardare Trailer park Boys senza
qualcosa da bere a portata di mano

>"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
>>On Oct 5, 11:36 am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
>> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
>> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> >not to eat it herself.

>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197

>It's probably not pasteurized, is it? It's kind of "big brother" to
>refuse to sell it, but I think there are warnings about pregnant women
>and non-pasteurized products.

Not true, only soft-ripened young cheeses. Read the article, it
discusses the fact that the clerk was incorrect in what was said
as well as abusive in the way it was said.

pavane

On Oct 5, 9:36*am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> not to eat it herself.
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197

I'm surprised they even let her in the store.

ViLco wrote:
> Mark Thorson wrote:
>
>> Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
>> cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
>> not to eat it herself.
>
> These are total nuts.

Next up - An article where the same clerk refuses to
sell nuts to the same lady.

Nancy2 wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 11:36 am, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > Sainsbury's (UK supermarket chain) refused to sell Canadian
> > cheddar to a woman because she's pregnant, until she promised
> > not to eat it herself.
> >
> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218197
>
> It's probably not pasteurized, is it? It's kind of "big brother" to
> refuse to sell it, but I think there are warnings about pregnant women
> and non-pasteurized products.
>
> N.


Sounds as though the clerk(s) were uninformed.

The milk for cheddar-type cheese is cultured with Lactobacillus spp.
prior to adding the rennet, thereby making it more inhospitable for any
unwanted microorganisms. Then the curds are cooked...that's part of the
cheddaring process. The finished cheese is aged, which further reduces
possiblity of unwanted nasties in there.

Only fresh, raw milk cheeses might be considered a Listeria risk.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
>
> In article
> >,
> Nancy2 > wrote:
>
> > It's probably not pasteurized, is it? It's kind of "big brother" to
> > refuse to sell it, but I think there are warnings about pregnant women
> > and non-pasteurized products.
>
> And yet, nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
> been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk.

Which as you are well aware, is an absolutely meaningless thing to say
since in the US there are no factories that use unpasteurized milk, and
probably 0.1% of the population consumes unpasteurized milk.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > "Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
> > >
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > Nancy2 > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's probably not pasteurized, is it? It's kind of "big brother" to
> > > > refuse to sell it, but I think there are warnings about pregnant women
> > > > and non-pasteurized products.
> > >
> > > And yet, nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
> > > been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk.
> >
> > Which as you are well aware, is an absolutely meaningless thing to say
> > since in the US there are no factories that use unpasteurized milk, and
> > probably 0.1% of the population consumes unpasteurized milk.
>
> It is still legal to buy pasteurized milk and dairy products in many
> states. They just make it harder. You are right that most people don't
> use them. However, it isn't as though pasteurization magically protects
> people. Healthy animals, clean operations and sanitary milking
> practices protect people. Most of the contamination in milk products
> happens post-pasteurization, it wouldn't matter either way in those
> cases. Since milk is pasteurized, for the most part, it has led to
> sloppy pre-pasteurization practices and pasteurization doesn't eliminate
> all bacteria and contaminates. Mixing all the milk in one vat, so that
> milk from sick animals is comingled with milk from healthy animals is
> also a problem that is allowed because of pasteurization.

Claiming that "nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk" attempts to
demonize the factories and/or pasteurized milk and implies that
unpasteurized milk is safer, which is simply not true.

Statistically, since like 0.l% of the population consumes unpasteurized
milk products vs. the 99.8% that consume pasteurized milk products, you
would expect that most issues would relate to the prevalent product.

"Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Claiming that "nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
> > been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk" attempts to
> > demonize the factories and/or pasteurized milk and implies that
> > unpasteurized milk is safer, which is simply not true.
>
> My issue is with the assumption that pasteurization ensures safety
> while raw dairy ensures illness. It is not the case.

No, it is not the case, however it also does not justify the implied
claims in your earlier statement.

What is true is that you have a much higher probability of becoming ill
from unnpasteurized milk products than from pasteurized milk products,
but in both cases the probability is very low.


> If you read up on
> the history of pasteurization you will find that the reason it became
> necessary was because of a lack of interest in cleaning up whiskey
> dairies, rather than because there was a general problem with milk.
> What has resulted is that most modern dairies are now much like those
> whiskey dairies, rather than cleaner. They count on pasteurization to
> cover the problems, which is better than passing the problem on, but
> that doesn't address the root problem. This has created an environment
> where the illness of the animals, the conditions they are in, their
> feed, the cleanliness of their housing and milking facilities are seen
> as not as important as they ought, since all those bugs will be killed
> in pasteurization anyway. That is bad practice. On top of that,
> pasteurization does not kill all the bad bugs, leaving "super bugs,"
> much like the over use of antibiotics and antibacterials does.

The simple fact is that cows are naturally filthy animals and most dairy
farms are not worse than cows in their natural environment. A some dairy
farms are a lot cleaner as well.

>
> > Statistically, since like 0.l% of the population consumes unpasteurized
> > milk products vs. the 99.8% that consume pasteurized milk products, you
> > would expect that most issues would relate to the prevalent product.
>
> Since you have just made up that statistic, I have no reason to
> consider it as anything but your own conjecture. It also ignores the
> fact that most milk contamination happens _after_ pasteurization,
> rendering the pasteurization moot.

My statistic is a reasonable estimation of the population of the US that
consumes unpasteurized milk products. Even if it is off by a factor of
10, it still points out why nearly all milk related illnesses are linked
to pasteurized milk.

Your argument is rather like claiming that Lamborghinis are much safer
than Hondas since there are far fewer accidents involving Lamborghinis
each year than Hondas, completely ignoring the 1,000,000:1 ratio of
Hondas to Lamborghinis.

Where contamination typically occurs in milk products in no way
invalidates what I have said about the huge disparity in the pasteurized
milk consuming population vs. the unpasteurized milk consuming
population. Indeed your statement about where contamination occurs does
invalidate your implication that the pasteurized milk is less safe than
the unpasteurized milk.

It is very clear where your bias lies, but your statements shouldn't lie
to try to support your bias.

>
> You'll have to excuse me if I trust raw milk from a dairy whose cows
> I can see, who eat on pasture most of the year and have hay when they
> can't, and whose milking parlor I can visit over the milk from these
> "safe" dairies who pool their milk, keep their cattle in small spaces,
> eating grain rather than grass, who cannot keep these USDA approved
> places from having disease and bacteria spread in them and simply recall
> when their lawyers decide it is statistically in their favor.

You have every right to trust whatever source of milk products you want.
You do not have the moral right (free speech after all) to bash the
extraordinarily safe US commercial dairy products with false claims. For
every glass of your unpasteurized milk that is safely consumed, millions
of glasses of pasteurized milk are safely consumed.

> You don't
> have to read anti-agribusiness literature to find this. Read standard
> agricultural magazines, dairy newspapers. The reason for those
> antibiotics in our beef and milk? Because they are sick all the time
> from eating a diet which gives them scours, AKA continual diarrhea, and
> standing knee deep in their own filth. It is standard to give the
> cattle preventative antibiotics in the industry because it is standard
> for them to be sick.

Here you are confusing, perhaps deliberately, they vastly different
conditions that beef cattle are frequently found in (feed lots), vs.
dairy conditions. Even then, you are vastly exaggerating as feed lot
filth is ankle deep at most. Also the feed for dairy cows is vastly
different than the feed for beef cattle in feed lots.

>
> We now live in farm country. We see which dairies and ranches have
> the crowded and smelly animals and which ones let their animals range
> and manage their waste. We don't buy meat from the grocery store with
> some very specific exceptions (brands and companies we know at least
> don't plug their animals with grain and drugs).

Certainly it is nice to be able to survey the conditions if you have
local options available and the time to do it.

> If we have to buy store
> milk, we only buy Organic Valley milk, because although it is
> pasteurized, their cattle is pastured and you can get unhomogenized milk
> (why do they homogenize milk? So they can take more of the cream for
> butter and still call their whole milk whole, even though it has about
> half the cream of real whole milk. The discussion of what the chemical
> process of breaking the fat globules down at that level does to people
> is another objection we have).

Wow, now you're really off base.

First off, most consumers prefer low fat milk, so removing much of the
cream isn't much of an issue.

Second off, you really are off in left field claiming that
homogenization is some chemical process when the truth is that it is an
entirely mechanical process.

I suppose you also think that refined sugar is chemically treated as
well, vs. the truth that it is nothing more than spun in a centrifuge to
separate the crystallizes sugar from the molasses.

>
> The bottom line is that the USDA considers Twinkies and Fruit Loops
> safe, but thinks that raw milk and home butchered meat is dangerous. I
> know where I will take my chances.

Again, you're stretching the truth. Raw milk and home butchered meat are
*potentially* dangerous.

"Pete C." wrote:
>
> "Ranée at Arabian Knits" wrote:
> >
> > If we have to buy store
> > milk, we only buy Organic Valley milk, because although it is
> > pasteurized, their cattle is pastured and you can get unhomogenized milk
> > (why do they homogenize milk? So they can take more of the cream for
> > butter and still call their whole milk whole, even though it has about
> > half the cream of real whole milk. The discussion of what the chemical
> > process of breaking the fat globules down at that level does to people
> > is another objection we have).
>
> Wow, now you're really off base.
>
> First off, most consumers prefer low fat milk, so removing much of the
> cream isn't much of an issue.
>
> Second off, you really are off in left field claiming that
> homogenization is some chemical process when the truth is that it is an
> entirely mechanical process.

The original poster appears to be referring to certain
quack nutritional theories regarding homogenization
of milk.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/2/327

"Pete C." > wrote in message
>> > Which as you are well aware, is an absolutely meaningless thing to say
>> > since in the US there are no factories that use unpasteurized milk, and
>> > probably 0.1% of the population consumes unpasteurized milk.
>>

> Claiming that "nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
> been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk" attempts to
> demonize the factories and/or pasteurized milk and implies that
> unpasteurized milk is safer, which is simply not true.
>
> Statistically, since like 0.l% of the population consumes unpasteurized
> milk products vs. the 99.8% that consume pasteurized milk products, you
> would expect that most issues would relate to the prevalent product.

Did you know that virtually all the criminals on death row drank pasteurized
milk as children? Therefore, drinking pasteurized milk can lead to a life
of crime.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>> > Which as you are well aware, is an absolutely meaningless thing to say
>>> > since in the US there are no factories that use unpasteurized milk,
>>> > and
>>> > probably 0.1% of the population consumes unpasteurized milk.
>>>
>
>> Claiming that "nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US have
>> been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk" attempts to
>> demonize the factories and/or pasteurized milk and implies that
>> unpasteurized milk is safer, which is simply not true.
>>
>> Statistically, since like 0.l% of the population consumes unpasteurized
>> milk products vs. the 99.8% that consume pasteurized milk products, you
>> would expect that most issues would relate to the prevalent product.
>
> Did you know that virtually all the criminals on death row drank
> pasteurized milk as children? Therefore, drinking pasteurized milk can
> lead to a life of crime.

lol

Ed Pawlowski said...

>
> "Pete C." > wrote in message
>>> > Which as you are well aware, is an absolutely meaningless thing to
>>> > say since in the US there are no factories that use unpasteurized
>>> > milk, and probably 0.1% of the population consumes unpasteurized
>>> > milk.
>>>
>
>> Claiming that "nearly all illnesses and deaths from dairy in the US
>> have been linked to factories which use pasteurized milk" attempts to
>> demonize the factories and/or pasteurized milk and implies that
>> unpasteurized milk is safer, which is simply not true.
>>
>> Statistically, since like 0.l% of the population consumes unpasteurized
>> milk products vs. the 99.8% that consume pasteurized milk products, you
>> would expect that most issues would relate to the prevalent product.
>
> Did you know that virtually all the criminals on death row drank
> pasteurized milk as children? Therefore, drinking pasteurized milk can
> lead to a life of crime.


Heh heh heh heh heh!

Andy