Talk:Raw milk movement

High priority
We are the #1 ranking on google for the search "raw milk movement" and the highest ranking skeptical website for related search terms. I'd say making this a great article and keeping it that way should be a priority. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Some info of farm that sells milk that is not heat treated
Omoiyari Farm (Japanese) User:K61824User_talk:K61824 00:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Boundaries blurred here
"Raw milk" redirects here, which is misleading. The existence of a woo-peddling "raw milk movement" notwithstanding, there remains a large set of people throughout the US, Europe and much of the rest of the world who neither treat it as a political issue nor suffer from consuming it - the milk and its products taste better without pasteurization. This article is grossly lacking in scientific honesty. One would expect anything even nearly as dangerous as raw milk is presented as being to result in something more than 150 illnesses per year and two deaths in eleven years (| From 1998 to 2009, that led to 1,837 illnesses, two resulting in death.) in a population of three hundred million (see the same link for an estimate of the prevalence of unpasteurized milk further warranting this) - but you're literally | fifty thousand times more likely to die from falling. Calling out woo surrounding raw milk is laudable. Treating said woo as an inextricable part of raw milk consumption is preposterous. I am putting this up for feedback before proceeding with a total rewrite. Frostbyte (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that information in the article is all correct. Let me posit the following to you: while 300 million people do live in the United States, how many of said population consume raw milk? Now, contrast that with how many that do not and calculate a ratio of those who are harmed by raw milk versus those who do not consume it but are harmed by pasteurized milk. A total re-write would be stupid and against what RationalWiki does. People aren't coming here to learn what raw milk is; they are coming here to find out whether raw milk is really as wonderful and miraculous as their chiropractor or the internet at-large said it was. If you want something with a neutral point of view, something that sugar-coats the stupidity that is the raw milk movement, you are clearly in the wrong place. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you creatively and cleverly left out the fact that it not just the harm that comes from consuming raw milk, but that the New Agers think (like they do everything else) that is is some sort of wonder drug. It is not. And once again, we provide articles like this to tease out the bullshit from the facts, not to present it in a way that is at all kind to woomeisters. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Raw chicken
"Due to the possibility of unprocessed raw milk containing pathogens such as bovine tuberculosis, brucellosis, or salmonella, most medical authorities consider raw milk to be rather dangerous, much like eating raw chicken" Is it really that dangerous? I thought raw chicken was one of the more dangerous products out there. Landmartian (talk) 19:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

An Org otherwise not mentioned
Came across this: http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw-milk.html The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is associated with the Weston A. Price group, most of the FTCLDF legal work is about reducing restrictions on Raw Milk Trade. I figured this could expand points onto the page for claims made, or if the group can be added to the category page for list of Food Woo groups. 86.155.65.240 (talk) 14:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Their latest news item is about Ron Paul introducing legislation. They're a defunct food woo group.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)