Glenn Grothman Wants to Poison You!

A Wisconsin State Senate committee is scheduled to take up Senate Bill 236–a bill that would open the doors to the legal sale of unpasteurized milk from dairy farmers.  The bill, championed by Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), would set up guidelines for allowing the dumber among us to consume a product that was made safe by Louis Pasteur in 1864.

Consider these facts from the FDA…

Between 1993 and 2006, more than 1500 people from drinking raw milk, or eating cheese made from raw milk.

The CDC reports that unpasteurized milk is 150 times more likely to cause foodborne illness and results in 13 times more hospitalizations than illnesses involving pasteurized dairy products.

Raw, unpasteurized milk can carry dangerous bacteria such as Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria, which are responsible for causing numerous foodborne illnesses.  Listeria, in pregnant women, can cause fetal miscarriage, or illness/death in newborns.

However, raw milk advocates will tell you it “tastes better,” and point to anecdotal evidence of safety by claiming they have never been made sick by raw milk.  You know what I think tastes better?  Not vomiting all over the place and making a mess inside your pants from food poisoning.  Let me be as graphic as possible and tell you that you can do both of these things (at the same time) for hours on end from food poisoning.  It will leave you so weak, you will wish you had the physical strength to end your existence.   I’ve had food poisoning before–and I certainly wouldn’t invite it into my house again because raw milk “tastes better.”


Related Articles

19 thoughts on “Glenn Grothman Wants to Poison You!

        1. That is a weblink, not an argument. I will say this…supporting choice is about a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Marriage equality is about fairness and the right of people to engage in marriage contract with each other. Raw milk is about selling a product that is a public health hazard. The government has an interest in protecting people from danger…especially ones that can lead to extreme sickness or death.

          1. “That is a weblink, not an argument.”

            Sorry, I was trying to be gentle.

            “I will say this…supporting choice is about a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy.”

            Agree, but I have a much broader definition of “choice.” It includes increased federal funding for education, family supporting jobs (collective bargaining), contraception,….

            “Marriage equality is about fairness and the right of people to engage in marriage contract with each other.”

            I agree, but wing nuts will argue that AIDS and STD’s are evidence that GLBT is a public health hazard.

            “Raw milk is about selling a product that is a public health hazard.”

            So is alcohol, the prohibition against it didn’t work.

            “The government has an interest in protecting people from danger…especially ones that can lead to extreme sickness or death.”

            I wish federal, state, and local governments would take more of an “interest,” in protecting us from the consequences of income inequality, green house gasses, fracking,…..

            IMHO, sand for fracking is more of a “public health” issue, because unlike raw milk, it can’t be labeled and you don’t have to buy it to be affected.


            In the background of this debate is Obama’s “mandate” that Americans have to buy LOUSY healthy insurance coverage. IMHO that’s a huge win for the GOP

            I’d love to see Reid rip the mandate out of Obamacare and replace it with a “public option,” that folks could purchase Medicare. Health insurance oligopoly would scream bloody murder, because they don’t want the competition. Their profit margins are based on forcing people to buy lousy coverage.

  1. Boloney! or bologna, whichever way you spell it also has the risk of lysteria contamination. Don’t get all fear mongering on me here. Get the FACTS and don’t spread boloney. Pasteurization changes properties in milk(not just flavor…ask a food scientist) just like cooking changes properties in meat, fish poultry eggs, juices etc. There are risks from any food product that is not properly handled stored or served. I wouldn’t advocate buying raw milk from a grocery any more than I would advocate buying grocery store eggs and not cooking the daylights out of them to kill the samonella from improper handling and storage. Ever see the manner grocery stores handle eggs? They can sit on the loading dock in the sun for hours before anyone gets around to moving them to the cooler. Once upon a time humans were not afraid to consume raw eggs. If the eggs are handled and stored properly no worries… Our current food oversight is sorely lacking and folks need to relearn proper food handling, storage, cooking and or serving techniques. I still like runny eggs and i sure would like the opportunity to decide if I prefer the risks associated with raw milk ve it’s benefits thank you, JUST LABEL IT!
    On the other hand there are interests out there already poisoning us through our air and water resources and intending to do more.

    1. I don’t think the FDA and the CDC are baloney. Also, you made the argument against your point…you say that eggs are often stored improperly–I’m sure many people don’t know that. It’s hard to make an “informed” choice if you don’t know that this often happens.

      Also, this legislation doesn’t do much in the form of labeling the dangers of Raw Milk. Considering how many states now make it a crime to video tape animal abuse on farms, I consider the checks and balances way off scale with raw milk. I don’t see how the benefits of “better tasting milk” outweigh sickness and death.

  2. As a former public health worker, I have real problems with the raw milk advocates. However, I’m a reasonable person and might support sale of raw milk in a special section of a store with a HUGE warning label on it and rigorous testing of EVERY BATCH. The problem with allowing the sale of raw milk is in its use by the uniformed. It’s one thing for people to buy food containing trans fats or GMO products unknowingly–it’s quite another for a pregnant woman to buy milk that leads to a miscarriage because it is contaminated with Listeria or an immune-compromised child to die from drinking the contaminated milk that his parents thought would be “better” for him.

    1. “…The bill, a substitute amendment to Senate Bill 236, would allow a dairy farmer to sell unpasteurized milk directly to consumers from a farm, provided the farm met certain guidelines and was registered with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

      Farmers selling raw milk would have to take a sample on each day of production, freeze it, and preserve it for at least 15 days. They also would have to record the name, address and telephone number of every person who buys raw milk from them, and they would have to make the sales records available for inspection by local, state and federal government officials.

      Further, if a farmer gave an antibiotic to a cow, the milk from that animal couldn’t be sold until testing proved there was no drug residue.

      The bill specifies that unpasteurized milk must be free of pathogens, as proven in monthly tests, and the bill sets standards for bacterial counts and somatic cell counts that are indications of a cow’s health.

      Furthermore, the bill says farmers must keep their animals free of bovine tuberculosis, as demonstrated in annual tests that could cost thousands of dollars.

      “I think the changes are a little bit unnecessary to protect the public, but they may be necessary to get the votes,” said state Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend) who introduced the original version of Senate Bill 236. …

      1. My big concern here is that a lot of farmers are simply going to flout the law as they have been doing in the past. They complain compliance is too expensive. In fact, with the required testing for compliance, and the fact it has to be sold on the farm, I can’t imagine one could turn a profit.

        That makes me wonder, how long will it be until compliance standards are weakend? What good is monthly testing, if a cow can get sick in much less time than a month? Finally, what sort of penalties will violators incur? Are they going to be slap-on-the-wrists, or will they be charged with something substantial–maybe even spreading potential biological agents. (All it takes is a DA unfriendly to the cause).

    2. They will not be testing every batch. In fact, they will only have to store samples for 15 days and test every month. Anyone with a child knows how quickly disease can spread. In a month, you can go from a healthy class room full of children to a vomitorium in a matter of days.

  3. It’s about choice, quality and more.
    Raw milk is as safe as you make it. With proper handling and storage, safety is no problem, just like any perishable food.
    It does seem that suppliers should comply with some sort of regulations that insure the referenced handling and storage.

    1. The choosing public. Choice is a wonderful thing without your restrictive government telling a citizen what is right for them. I am sure you back Muslims to worship in freedom, why not this?

      1. Freedom of religion is something completely different than serving a product that is possibly harboring lethal bacteria. I don’t recall there being anything in the Constitution about our right to be biological agents that are deemed dangerous.

        1. Quite the exchange here Brian, important topic. One has to ask at least one other question specific to the topic and that would be what is Grothman’s motivation to get behind the bill? I don’t know, have more important things to do than to search that one at the moment. Future topic for you?

          Harboring lethal bacteria is something that happens frequently with other foods, notably “fresh,” lettuce and spinach. Dept of Ag has insufficient numbers of food inspectors in several food categories from sources both foreign and domestic, to be adequately checking for much of anything at the moment. Who’s responsible for attending these shortcoming or even recognizing and admitting the problem exists, where addressing it from our government might also cut into corporate profits?

          (Food safety related, a bigger fish to fry?) Lastly, on USDA and CDC and FDA, et al., as to your statement -@ 11:43pm 11/13-, “The government has an interest in protecting people from danger…especially ones that can lead to extreme sickness or death,” I assume that you at east signed the anti-GMO petitions and have written about the farm bill when the topic has come up. I agree with you on what the government should be doing, but the sad fact that our government is not our government any longer is the problem to be addressed and corrected, eh? Forest for the trees and all that, with the raw milk flap. Personal letters to sorryO, anyone? I didn’t help elect him and I have not sat by and said nothing about him.

        2. What about serving tobacco? You’re trying to paint this evil picture of a republican just for a dig. Yet, you failed to look into why the people that want to drink raw milk think it is important. This isn’t going out to the vast grocery network, unlike tobacco.

          1. Grothman has long painted his own self-portrait, no one here could do as good a job and the evil pointed to here is the possibility of serious health risks with a product consumed as a food, not as a drug.

Comments are closed.