Frank Leslie's exposé caused widespread public outrage and local politicians were strongly pressured to punish and regulate the distillery-dairies, which were formally complained to be "swill milk nuisance".[9] The Tammany Hall politician Alderman Michael Tuomey, known as "Butcher Mike", defended the distillers vigorously throughout the scandal—in fact, he was put in charge of the Board of Health investigation. Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper staked out distillery owner Bradish Johnson's mansion at 21st and Broadway, and reported that in the midst of the investigation, Tuomey was observed making late night visits.
Tuomey assumed a central role in the ensuing investigations, and, with fellow Aldermen E. Harrison Reed and William Tucker, shielded the dairies and turned the hearings into one-sided exercises designed to make dairy critics and established health authorities look ridiculous, even going to the extent of arguing that swill milk was actually as good or better for children than regular milk.[9] With Reed and others, Tuomey successfully blocked any serious inquiry into the dairies and stymied calls for reform. The Board of Health exonerated the distillers, but public outcry led to the passage of the first food safety laws in the form of milk regulations in 1862.[10]
Tuomey became known for his attempts to block the new regulations, and earned the new moniker "Swill Milk" Tuomey.[11] In addition to Tuomey's assistance in clearing up the unclean image milk developed, Robert Milham Hartley, a social reformist, aided in the restoration of milk being a nutritional and safe-to-drink beverage. During the mid to late nineteenth century, Hartley utilized Biblical references in his essays to appeal to the urban community. He asserted that universal milk consumption could help alleviate society's "sins", poverty, and alcohol consumption.
The cows? No, all the alcohol had been extracted from the macerated grains, which made it a waste product of the distillery, but the grain itself still had nutritional value so they fed it to cows. Cutting it with all that other crap they added to it led to the cows getting sick and their milk getting tainted.
Gotta get rid of those regulations so we can have people drinking swill milk again.
CHARLESTON, W.Va. (WSAZ) -- In the weeks after passing a bill, allowing West Virginians to drink raw milk, one delegate brought the drink in to celebrate and, eventually, several lawmakers have gotten sick.
I don't totally disagree with raw milk, but it shouldn't be allowed to be destributed. If you go to a local farm and pick up some milk that hasn't been pasteurized, that seems reasonable, and honestly a lot better than the current system.
I don't think raw milk should be available to buy except directly on a farm. Yes, we have refrigeration now and you can TB test the cows regularly but there is zero reason to go back to the times of listeria and tuberculosis killing and disabling children just because someone read some nonsense on the Internet.
Yeah, if can sell shit it's a successful business & brave owners should be rewarded with profits not because of contributions to society but purely on what they could push out. However, suffering and death seems to add that extra bit of flavour to profit that we humans must obviously enjoy very much. Its fair to assume that because we really are naturally talented in not just inventing but also realising & mass producing horror beyond human imagining.
Pasteurization didn't even arrive in the US until the 1890s so even if these cows had unadulterated milk, it would still be killing massive amounts of infants by feeding it to them.
In a place like New York City, without adequate pasture and no refrigeration in the first place so nessicating literal factory farming, there was no way to market milk that wouldn't be lethal at the time.
It's frankly baffling that anybody was drinking raw milk at all at the time. Usually you'd process it into yogurt or cheese unless you directly lived on a farm or had a breastfeeding problem (which would likely result in the death of an infant). This was known since ancient times. It's why raw milk consumption was mostly associated with peasant farmers for a very long time.
I guess they saw a market of poor rural immigrants who had lived on a farm and decided to swindle them to death.
One thing to keep in mind with this time period and public health, of course is life was still cheap in cities. This is the age of King Cholera.
Edit: As an interesting aside, distiller's grains are nowadays more popular with beef cattle farmers. They're high in protein since they've been spent for making ethanol and so are better for producing muscle than milk. They've also been suggested as a good human supplement since it's got all the good stuff of grain without the sugar, so here comes bachelor chow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillers_grains
The reason they were raising cows in the city in the first place is the wet grain will spoil if you try to transport it too far from the distillery. They were trying to make a buck on trash.
Studies from 2015 and 2019 suggest that people who support animal exploitation also tend to endorse racist, sexist, and other prejudicial views, which furthers the beliefs in human supremacy and group dominance to justify systems of inequality and oppression.
Maybe it's because I used to live near a prison, and I had to go to the same hospital prisoners would in emergencies, but when did humans stop treating other humans like that?
Haven't you been told that we don't talk about that kind of oppression here? Everyone knows that mistreatment of humans is bad, but mistreatment of animals is just how things are supposed to be. They are just lesser beings after all, and such kind of thinking hasn't lead to anything bad in history, so it's not at all problematic.
Progressivism is about fighting oppression when it suits you, and meat is just soo convenient. The mega corps promised that nothing bad is happening there, so praise the factory farms!
Your sarcasm is so subtle that it took me a while to understand. Thanks for chiming in. I dont get why people downvote me for saying animals should be treated fairly (yes, as fairly as humans).
I'm autistic so pardon my ignorance but when did I criticize anyone? I literally said An thats why I support anti speciesism. and llinked an article and quoted it. You know, the thing that therapists show you: lead by example, send "me" messages as in say what you (would) do instead of criticizing the behavior of someone else. I'm genuinely baffled. Can you elaborate?
Ok... thanks, I guess. :) I didnt recognize i did it. Did I mention I was beaten up in school a lot. The reason was mostly this but I dont get it. If you tell me my opinion is trash I usually check if I went wrong, no harm in that.
My first instinct is to make another joke and say "So a warped perception? They should get that checked. Might be something serious." but everyone would probably hate me even more for it.
The idea I had was that "exploitation" is the issue. Imho the reason why we shouldnt kill and eat other humans is because our society would seize to function and humans I assume dont taste good, not because its less ethical than killing an animal. if you have to kill to survive, I assume thats not exploitation. I dont even take issue with eating meat for nutrient reasons every now and then. I take issue with keeping animals in small pens for a short and miserable life and feel no shame at all about it. Thats what I find disgusting. And it translates to other humans (immigrants, disabled, mentally ill, women, etc.). Thats why I say we should change our view of that.
Modern humans are very fatty and highly stressed. I hate fatty meat and stress makes the meat taste bad. Not to talk about all the toxins they ingest. Even if they dont taste bad, I'm kinda over eating junkfood.
Yeah, your take makes perfect sense to me. I'm just letting you know why your original message gets interpreted negatively even by people who would otherwise agree with your message.
Take a minute to think about it. What's the intention behind quoting this specific passage instead of another? Is it a continuation of your first statement and you're providing this as the reason you support anti-speciesism (i.e. that you're not racist/sexist)? Or are you trying to tell others that they're racist/sexist for being specieist? Or are they completely disjoint and you just wanted to share a fun fact? Or maybe you intended something completely different? But I can't think of how else to interpret it, so if that's the case, you'd have to elaborate.
Thanks for elaborating. It was very helpful. My autistic brain works in weird ways. My intention is to tell people "please read about this and consider joining the movement because we need to change things or we will perish." or something like that. I didnt mean to say anyone is anything really. It was just a good point that the article made imo. "look at this compelling argument" for example.
Maybe I should ask that I dont have this dimension of "someone does something that is not directly related to me but means me with it." This has caused me intense trouble because other people do have it, apparently. Its how social hierarchy is often negotiated iirc. Does that make sense?
I wouldn't say they're equivalent. Obviously beating a fly isn't as bad as beating a dog or a pig. But is beating a human much worse than beating a dog? For me it comes down to capacity to suffer I guess.
It's also what farmers say when they decide to grow plants, and what racists say when they decide to be racist, and what lawmakers say about different types of vehicles, and what mathematicians say about true and false proofs, and what dieticians say about dinner and desert. "These two things aren't the same and that should be taken into account" is such a universal concept that using any one example to push your agenda against me is laughable, even if sometimes people use it to be evil.
Libertarians will tell you that even this isn’t cause for government regulation and that the market will weed out the bad businesses by not buying their product.
That’s because the market is babies and they’d all be dead, Jim!
