I didn't over look that a single dairy plant had 16,000 proven and between 168,791 and 197,581 actual cases, much as you didn't overlook that this single farm caused 40+cases. Increased scale/consolidation is one of those unintended consequences which advocates of regulation tend to ignore. I also didn't ignore that this occurred after pasteurization much as meat can easily be contaminated after being radiated. The once sterile food gives a false idea of security leading to less care in final packaging.

Universal precautions are SOP in schools and day cares.

Even you admit that the farm in question is essentially out of business, so the profit over people line of thought is nonsense. Small farms (which are regulated btw) are not like Cargil they can't just switch plants when things go bad. I never said no oversight, but we could argue about the best way to do that when I'm not so tired.

I frown on feel good bans that limit what others can do.

Agreed... Peace

When enough people get sick from these farms, even those democrat despising republicans will be clamoring for regulations/bans.

Oh, I don't know, there was no clamor to ban spinach or Jack-in-the-Box when they were killing people.

...from my cold dead bloated hand.

Red No. 1

Your choices can and do impact others. When you get sick, you use the healthcare system. This will absolutely have an inflationary impact on me. It will either increase my insurance price, my taxes, or my self-paid healtcare prices.

I'm with you, Griff. Didn't have time to jump in, but you said everything I could have. I'm Clodfobble, and I approve this message.

As did the hundreds of thousands who still got sick off of pasteurized products. The missing data point is, next to 40 ill people, how many people are safely consuming these raw farm products, compared to how many sickened/unsickened mass-factory consumers there are.

I just posted because regulations/bans are not brought about solely by democrats. Look at bans on gay marriage and the fight to ban abortions or even the the right to work laws which ban union dues.

It's even probable that the fight to ban these types of milk farms are probably being egged on by the big factory dairy farms themselves (repubs, for sure) to discourage competition.

Clod, I hope your remark above was exaggeration only for impact... otherwise I call BS.

I realize public health statistics are not convincing to the believers.
But here is a link that summarizes another link (downloads a pdf)
on disease outbreaks in the U.S. during the past year.

85% of Outbreaks and Illnesses from Milk Products were traced
to Raw Milk or 60-day Aged Raw Milk Cheeses in the Last 18 Months

The details are in the pdf of that download. There is risk in discussing
the numbers of illness cases because cases depend on the size of each dairy's clientele.
Basically the numbers outbreaks are very small (14 raw / 1 pasterized),
but the numbers of dairies and the amounts of dairy products are hugely disproportionate.

A Libertarian argument against government intervention denies
the world's history and the impact of pasteurization and vaccination.
It was the futility of such a Libertarian view that was my original point in these posts.
.

I was specifically referencing this part from Griff's link:

This is what I was already saying, when I referred to the "missing data point." The other problem with any debate of this nature is how to factor in the additional effects of pasteurizing products, beyond pathogenic infection.

The human species is dependent on symbiotic relationships with "good" species of bacteria for a number of biological functions, and it may turn out that indiscrimately wiping out bacteria in our lives will eventually cause a species-wide health crisis (say, for example, the skyrocketing rate of autoimmune diseases.)

No one can say for sure what the overall impact of such a policy will be--it may be that we're not as good at killing things as we'd like to believe, and our efforts won't really matter, or it may be that those individuals who depend more on this symbiosis will die out, and the species will evolve to match the new environment we've created.

Regardless, if your argument is really that people should be forcibly protected from making themselves sick, can I assume that you are also in favor of outlawing tobacco, and enforcing government-mandated dietary guidelines for all obese citizens?

I start from the premise that some form of government is required for a modern society.

That government should/must do what people cannot or will not do for themselves.
Therefore, government must regulate certain activities in which others will/can/may be harmed.

Thus since not everyone can be a self sufficient farmer, the distribution of safe
food products to the public is valid regulation by government.
Therefore, the Libertarian premise of no government intervention is doomed to fail.

I do also subscribe to the notion of the most good to the most people.
Therefore, not all people will be happy or unaffected by governmental actions,
and a smaller number may even be negatively affected.
(That's the reason I include vaccinations as a legitimate activity of government ... to protect
the greatest number possible,while doing unavoidable harm to the smallest number possible.
It's also my reason for concern over the current activities fracking for production of natural gas.

For the examples you mention (tobacco and obesity),
the latter is a gray area still open for discussion.
We don't yet know if a better informed public will deal with the problem.
But the former is now clear, the tobacco industry was lying about
the safety of tobacco and making a profit based on that lie,
so government intervention is/was justified.
Likewise, since children cannot make their own decisions,
government legitimately forbids them from certain activities.

Of course, the survivalist way of life would avoid these issues,
but living in modern society does have a cost.
.

Government intervention, in the case of tobacco, was suing the tobacco companies for lying, and making them print facts about the deadliness of smoking on their packets. So does that mean you're fine with the sale of raw milk to consumers who specifically prefer it, as long as there is a big Surgeon General's warning on the bottle?

For the record, I'm not in favor of pure Libertarianism as a form of government myself. But it seems really obvious to me that you are cherry-picking examples "in need" of regulation when exponentially larger and more destructive examples are readily available. People who chose to smoke in the past might "deal with the problem," now that they are better informed? People who are obese might "deal with the problem" if only they were aware of the dangers of a high-carb, refined-sugar diet? Honestly?

The Ohio Casinos will not allow smokers to work there. OK.

As far as I know, a 400 pound cheeseburger-monger can.

A raging alcoholic can. (Well NO not on the job.)

Meh. It's easier to single out the 'evil' people than it is single out the 'pure and good' people. Whatever that is.