A Little Unsolicited Advice to FFC

The first legal repercussion from the Michigan raw milk sting has me asking questions. Here is my latest: What should members of Family Farms Cooperative (FFC) do to help David Hochstetler, the Indiana farmer who supplies its raw milk, who is now threatened by a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warning letter that could lead to some enforcement action unless he buckles under?

I broached that subject at the end of my previous posting, and Michael Richard picked up on it, with his vision of a summer march through Michigan, through Lansing to Hochstetler’s farm, which would raise money for farmer legal assistance and turn into a media event highlighting the problems of government repression of raw milk farmers.

I think that’s a great idea. My only concern is that it could be too little, too late.

I worry that Hochstetler could require more substantial assistance sooner than this summer. He needs to provide a formal answer to the FDA within 15 business days.

The FFC has fought valiantly in a number of ways to stand up for its rights to lease cows and consume their milk. Members arranged for a new dropoff point in the Ann Arbor area when Richard Hebron was deprived of the Morgan & York storage area. They wrote more than 200 letters to Michigan county prosecutors on behalf of Richard Hebron. They have bombarded the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) and local politicians with protest letters, and have just launched a new round of letters, now including media representatives among their targets. Members are obviously empathetic with David Hochstetler, the Amish farmer who supplies raw milk, per comments on my recent posts.

Since I’m not a member of FFC, I feel awkward telling members what to do. Suffice it to say, I believe FFC members need to try to anticipate potential actions by the FDA before this summer, and how they might counter possible actions. One way is to obtain legal input from an FDA expert sooner rather than later. There are definitely other actions, as Michael Richard suggests. Better to be prepared than only reacting to events as they unfold.

Comments

[Michael Richard]

I'm also of the opinion that my walk idea may be too late to help the Hochstetlers save their farm (from the crackdown by the FDA). And that is the reason for including informational literature on real foods, to help educate others of the merits of buying fresh local produce, dairy and meats. To address the root cause of the problems that the Hebron and Hochstetler farms, and the FFC are facing - the hijacking of our food supply, and the regulations that govern it, by corporate agri-business.

As a group, we're being forced to react to the symptoms of bad government, i.e. the FDA/MDa harassment of the Hochstetlers and Hebrons. So we need to take the short-term approach by continuing to put pressure on our Reps, and informing the media. At the same time, we need to address the long-term problem of poor regulatory practices, and interference in the democratic process by corporate lobbys.

[Ken Conrad]

I believe there are laws in your country designed to protect individual human rights from the fundamentally and ethically corrupt motives of the FDA.

FFC needs to hire a good layer and file litigation charges against the FDA as quickly as possible. The FDA cannot be allowed to isolate and harass individuals such as David Hochstetler or to undermine a contract made in good faith between him and FFC.

Hopefully the funds necessary to engage in such an endeavor will begin to flow in.

Ken Conrad

[Dave Milano]

We have always been a nation of laws. Over recent years we have evolved into a nation of regulations.

Where law-making is a from-the-ground-up process (springing from fundamental principles of property, contracts, and rights), regulation-making is far more arbitrary and capricious. (Witness rules about property confiscation that stand outside due process--police and judges have no such enforcement powers.)

As regulations have increased in number and reach, America has gradually become desensitized to them. Regulators sense this, and have been emboldened to grab even more power. Thus today regulations often exist outside the law. When they do, they can and should be challenged on legal grounds.

Unfortunately those challenges can be expensive and time-consuming, especially when the violation is of a constitutional nature and unlikely to find proper adjudication in a low court. That is one of the terrible problems with regulation--individuals unable to fully fund legal challenges can find themselves suddenly, unjustly ruined. (Thank goodness for the growth cause-specific legal defense organizations!)

But there is hope outside the legal system. The glib arbitrariness of some regulations makes them subject to challenge in the court of public opinion. Aggressive regulators can be tamed by public embarrassment over their official actions. An embarrassed agency tends to pull in its horns. And while that may not change the rules for the next guy, it just might save an innocent individual.

[Don Neeper]

David,

We were able to use a media press release last year when the Ohio Department of Agriculture conducted a sting against an Amish farmer and revoked his Grade B Dairy license. (See http://www.mindspring.com/~rawmilk/WAP-PR-02-28-2006.pdf for the press release and full details.) We basically sent this release directly to the AP and all the major newspapers around the state, and many of them including the local television stations picked up and ran the story. (Just do a Google search for "Arlie Stutzman" to see how effective it was!) The end result was that the ODA was so embarrassed that they upgraded Arlie to a Grade A license and have pretty much left him alone. The ODA did score a Pyrrhic victory in court, but it hasn't affected his herd shareholders.

The shareholders in Michigan might want to consider something similar to help get their message out.