Thread: Nanny State Again

Originally Posted by isuzurover

That's what I thought when I read it - at her age she should know not to eat raw chicken.

Explains a lot about Mick

I'm putting you is the same category as Jessica Simpson. "Those that don't know the difference between chicken and seafood".
Is this chicken, what I have, or is this fish? I know it's tuna, but it says 'Chicken of... - Jessica Simpson at BrainyQuote

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Mick, there are VERY stringent laws on preparing oysters for sale.

In NSW all Oysters have to be depurated ( starved and held in known pure water) for 3 days before being sold or shucked.

Every estuary has to have a Management plan which states action to be taken after rain events. Typically there has to be a moratorium on harvest for up to 10 days plus depuration.

When the system breaks down as it did in Wallace Lake many years ago the results are dire. And the oyster growers were depurating but the water had e coli in it.

So I guess Nanny State again.

Regards Philip A

So, are oysters now banned from sale? If yes, I would say nanny state. If no, it supports my argument.

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Well. I have just changed my product. I am now selling plastic containers. Rather expensive plastic containers. It just so happens these containers may or may not contain raw milk. Now the nanny state will have to introduce another piece of legislation to cover that example. And on it goes.

Who was that bloke in Melbourne 30 years ago who would sell books on a Sunday, he got in trouble because you bought a certain book you got a certain free Billiard table

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

So, are oysters now banned from sale? If yes, I would say nanny state. If no, it supports my argument.

Sorry Mick I don't see it that way. IMHO the controls are like pasteurization . If the grower doesn't comply he cannot sell.
Otherwise anyone can pry them off the rocks and sell them . To me that is like raw milk.
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Sorry Mick I don't see it that way. IMHO the controls are like pasteurization . If the grower doesn't comply he cannot sell.
Otherwise anyone can pry them off the rocks and sell them . To me that is like raw milk.
Regards Philip A

You are right. That aspect is the same that already exists for milk for human consumption. I am not disputing the regulation to pasteurise milk for human consumption. I am against introducing the legislation banning the sale of raw milk that is clearly labeled "For Cosmetic Use Only Not For Human Consumption"

I think it poor legislation to ban the use of oysters for filtering salt water aquariums and bays because someone got sick. Hydrogen Peroxide can be used as a beauty product. Should we ban that because if someone drank it they could die?

IMHO (and others if you read some of the posts at the beginning of this thread), the mother should be charged with manslaughter for feeding her child a dangerous substance. This can be done under existing legislation. No need to introduce any new legislation.

Perhaps will be a good idea to change the bottle for something different like an engine oil plastic bottle
Then again some idiot would try to use it in a tin top car

Originally Posted by Saitch

How many people die or have a bad reaction from bee stings in Oz each year most, I would hazard a guess at, by the introduced Euro honey bee. Maybe they should be eradicated & we give up honey. (No offence intended to keepers Bob, just an analogy)
Where does it stop? There's a lot more money in honey than natural milk "products" so no ones going to touch that!
What's the deal with cows/goats milk anyway. Humans are the only animal to drink another animals milk. Yuk!
Steve

Cats, dogs and most mammals if they have the opportunity. Snakes can be lured with milk.

Originally Posted by V8Ian

Cats, dogs and most mammals if they have the opportunity. Snakes can be lured with milk.

.......and flies will get the left overs