It’s almost like there should be consumer protections enforced by the government to ensure that this doesn’t happen…
but this isn't a case of a dairy selling bad milk. raw milk is dangerous. the dairy tells people, "this is dangerous." this person bought the milk and nearly died because it was dangerous.
Replies
-
Putting a cup of hot coffee between your legs is extremely dangerous, especially from an establishment that advertised its very hot coffee because its customers valued that attribute.
-
That’s untrue where I saw it for sale. It was just sitting there in the dairy case. Nobody told anybody it was dangerous. It’s this dairy and they are selling all regular things—honey, yogurt, pasteurized milk, cheeses, and raw milk. There’s nothing saying ‘buy our special dangerous raw milk.’
-
I suspect the case will look totally different after you review the archived social media posts of the farm and its revenue stream balance between almost non-existent animal feed uses and human consumption. Think big tobacco.
-
All parties are living with the consequences of their own choices and actions. So be it.
-
Almost like the same warnings to not smoke, drink alcohol, or do drugs while pregnant.
-
This case is really odd. She says she never even drank the milk. She only gave it to her toddler who got e coli - presumably from the unpasteurized milk - and campylobacter (can be in raw milk but isn't mentioned in the segment). She then got the campylobacter from the kid she sickened 1/
-
-Danger is bad -Raw milk is dangerous -The dairy sells raw milk -Therefore, what the dairy sells is bad
Perhaps the solution is just prohibiting the sale of raw milk, period. Don't allow disclaimers that it's dangerous, or unfit for humans, that ppl will just explain away.
Outright ban the sale.
-
It is, actually. Apparently 21 cases of E. Coli from this dairy last week.
-
I like the threat of liability for the dairy and the store in because they should not be selling people an unreasonably dangerous product. It’d be better if people were informed consumers, but you have to account for the fact that many are not - a pregnant toddler mom has limited time to research.
-
The linked report says that the woman is suing a company called Keely Farms. You can Google their label. And the label says "for legal reasons we are required to tell you that this isn't for humans", not "this milk is dangerous".
-
This is true, and she is dumb for doing this, but I also think manufacturers should be held to a high standard when it comes to warning consumers of these hazards. The placement, size, and exact wording of the label are all important, in my view (not an expert in product liability by any stretch).
-
Can she sue the state?
“Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo wrote Tuesday, ‘Floridians have the freedom to make informed health choices. I support the decision to consume raw milk when sought for potential health benefits and protective factors. Be aware of your source and know the risks.’”
-
The dairy is unethical for selling something it knows is harmful. I don’t know if it should be liable. But the grifters promoting raw milk (RFK and friends) should be liable.
-
I missed that part. JFC
-
We should do what we can to protect people and we shouldn't put a raw milk guy in charge.
But she had every opportunity to not poison herself, this wasn't hard to learn information.
It's like seeing a "wet floor" sign and deciding to run through it, then blaming the building owner
-
If Clorox tells me not to drink their bleach, then I drink it and get sick, will anyone have my back??
-
The dairy knew what it was doing. The “not for human consumption” label is a fig leaf and that’s well known within the wacky raw milk subculture, which includes producers. Most raw milk dairy farmers are as MAHA-pilled as consumers. Those that aren’t are happy with the higher price they can charge.
-
"They should have warned me."
"They did warn you."
"Well I wasn't listening, so it doesn't count."
-
Seems to me the only weak point of a defense here — especially if the store is sued, not so much the farm — would be if there was no other animal food sold in the store, making it obvious that the label is a fig leaf. But then grocery stores generally sell pet food even if this one doesn’t.
-
Why blame the consumer/victim for following the advice of given by experts? www.tampabay.com/news/health/...
Florida surgeon general supports raw milk consumption despite 21 infections
Joseph Ladapo says he supports consumption of product labelled for animal consumption only.
-
These folks seem to want to hold "don't tell me what to do" and "nothing is ever my fault" at the same time. Evidently there is no appreciation of "personal responsibility" in their culture.
-
The wild part is it even says it isn’t for human consumption and is meant for animals! Just insane stuff. She was feeding this to her toddler!
-
It seems that the dairy and the grocery store selling it both said that the "not for human consumption" label was just a technicality and functionally promoted it as safe for people
