Another "raw milk" incident...

[yellowcanine]

162. I would point out that you brought up "Its about the kids". So what were you trying to evoke?

Bringing up something and then objecting to its having been made a part of the argument is a little silly, imo.

The reason children are invoked is because (1) they are in no position to make a reasoned decision on the risks and (2) they are more vulnerable to the pathogenic bacteria which may be in raw milk. These are facts, not an emotional argument. If you want to label that an emotional argument, so be it, but it is no more emotional than saying that raw milk tastes better and is better nutrition for kids, which is what the advocates of raw milk do say.

Yes there are risks everywhere. But the point is not to take unnecessary predictable and avoidable risks. The risks of raw milk are quite predictable and avoidable.

I know the arguments for raw milk - "nutrient dense," useful enzymes, beneficial bacteria etc. And even if we accept those arguments, I am saying that the risks outweigh any potential benefits because enzymes and beneficial bacteria can be added back to pasteurized milk and the resulting product will be much safer. And the "nutrient dense" argument is based on no science at all that I know of (if there is valid science for it the burden of proof is on those making the claim) so I would say that it is strictly an emotional argument, to use your terminology.

Just to be clear, I am not saying that raw milk is not "nutrient dense" as defined by nutritionists, but no more so than pasteurized milk.