Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Technically I would imagine that less pus would be better, but undoubtedly there is some trade off involved. It really depends on the costs of the pus and the costs of reducing it.
Is it a health hazard? If it is, the government should ban it. Does it change the definition of milk? For example, if until recently, milk was milk, but now milk is milk and 45% pus, the question of whether that constitutes milk should be asked. (And perhaps that is a question of cultural taste.) If 45% pus milk does not constitute milk, then the government should ban it. But if the 45% pus milk is neither a health hazard nor, perhaps, offensive to cultural taste, let its saleability be left up to the market forces as awesomelyglorious suggests.
Those are my opinions on this.