It’s been a tough week for anyone concerned about food rights.
And a cheery week for the technocrat enforcers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, who can see the way clear to harass owners of small farms and small health-care businesses and push us toward an ever-more-sterilized food system.
First, a federal judge dismissed the suit filed in federal court last year challenging the legitimacy of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). The judge apparently felt that because NAIS is voluntary, it’s not something that needs to be interfered with. Based on the way many states are implementing it (signing all farms up automatically, unless you manually opt out), we know it’s about as voluntary as an army private volunteering for latrine duty.
Then, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR 2749, the so-called food safety legislation. This is the legislation that may help improve certain aspects of food safety (such as toughening standards on imported food), at the expense of basic civil liberties. The latter include FDA inspections of business records without search warrants; FDA power to designate certain areas as under quarantine, without judicial review; FDA power to set farm growing standards (like elimination of certain cover plantings and erection of more fencing to keep out wild animals that could carry pathogens); and FDA implementation of supposed scientific standards (like irradiation of vegetables and meats, and pasteurization of milk) without review.
You’d think we’d have learned that whenever we trade important civil liberties for some perceived protection or another, we lose in the long run. The protection turns out to be ephemeral and the lost rights turn out to be real and permanent.
But when fear is the primary motivator, reason has little chance. One foodie blog, Obama Foodorama, asked in its description of the food safety legislative debate, “So is it safe to eat again? Not yet. But it will be, soon, if things keep on moving forward.” I would like to think they are joking, but I suspect they truly are concerned, and maybe because they partake of the factory system, they should be.
The food safety legislation was passed under mysterious circumstances. First, on Wednesday, it was being pushed through under rules whereby no amendments could be offered; but in exchange, it had to pass by a two-thirds vote. When it barely failed (to the chagrin of any number of supporters), the legislation was simply brought back the next day under different rules (hey, when you’re losing in baseball or football, you just change the rules, right?) whereby it could be passed by a simple majority. Amendments were considered, and apparently some were included—supposedly some that exempt small farms and organic producers from certain rules, according to the Obama Foodorama blog—but for the life of me, I can’t find any authorized explanation. The New York Times (“all the news that’s fit to print”) in its story about the legislation, says, “Much of the opposition centered on lesser provisions that critics said would add burdensome bureaucracy for farmers.” I love the reference to rights-related matters as “lesser provisions.” But nothing in the article about exactly what happened, nor in this article from the DesMoines Register, which has been covering the legislation.
Even if some of the “lesser provisions” were altered, the legislation can be expected to be sliced and diced to a considerable extent before being signed by the president, since it must still go through the Senate and then likely a conference committee. More rules changes and adjustments and secret deals can be expected along the way.
One thing that’s become very evident through this entire process is that President Obama has no appreciation of the issue of food rights and the relationship between food and health. He issued a statement of strong support for HR 2749.
When you consider that President Reagan opposed consumer do-gooders seeking to ban interstate sale of raw milk in the 1980s (and eventually was forced by a court decision to implement the change), you realize how far this country has moved toward ever-more-complete government control of the food system. The underground system for communicating information and distributing food that Blair McMorran imagines following my previous post is definitely not all that far-fetched any more.
The entire situation is mind-boggling when you think about it. Judges and legislators handing over rights that American soldiers over two centuries have died in battle for, to people like John Sheehan, who oversees the FDA’s war on raw milk, and to the agency’s army of arrogant technocrat enforcers.
States rights….the FDA can not apply its own rules when the state refuses to honor the PMO ( pastuerized milk ordinance an FDA milk producers and processors set of rules ) . It has been demonstrated before that CA does not care what the FDA says. The State of CA does not accept the PMO as it is written and made its own milk rules.
Yes….I do agree that passage of HR 2749 is a dark day for all of us that embrace living foods….but the FDA is weak when it comes to consumer support. A small but very active group of consumers hate the FDA. These people will get their living foods…. trust me….the prohibition did not work and neither does CFR 1240.61.
HR 2749 is a gift to the local food movement. It will enrage… and that is the fuel of change and unrest. HR 2749 will also further malnourish Americans and further deepen the immune depression that is already rampant.
Things must get worse to get better. The FDA must kill many more people with its policies and its drugs and strerile foods in order for its exploitive " unconsciuos rat experiment followers" to start to get it….or perhaps they never will and their deaths and retardation will leave the earth to those that are healthy, can reproduce and have a brain.
David described how change would occur last month…."economics" will drive change.
1800 conventional dairies in CA are collapsing and the milk price has not improved in more than a year. They are killing thousands of cows per month….but still lactose intolerance stops its fluid milk marketing efforts. FDA regs will not change this reality. Sterile foods are dead foods and their deficiencies are impossible to cover up. They cause illness and terrible gas pains. HR 2749 does not change this….it makes it worse.
So good old money and the sterile food side effects will make change happen….it already has.
The FDA can not make people go to the store and buy things. They can only effect the choices at the store. These are two different things.
If people stop going to stores and buy at Farmers Markets there will be even more collapse of the current paradigm.
Small farmers are exempt under HR 2749. Stupid people do stupid things. Trust me….we have stupid people running our country when it comes to food and nutrition.
Mark
Here is the full text of HR2749
Perhaps someone who understands the foreign language this bill is written in can tell us if what it seems to say is true. Small farm exeption? Scrooll down about 10 pages.
EXEMPTIONS Direct Sales By Farms
Food is exempt from requirements of this subsection if
Sold direct from the farm by farm owner ect. sounds a bit like a "loop hole" for small farmers but what is meant by "this subsection" ect.
Its no wonder Congress never reads the bills they vote on for surely they would have a constant headache.
Many of the Congressmen have canceled their town meetings claiming that they are unable to discuss their positions with mobs well what did they expect. THE CONGRESSMEN REALLY DON"T GET IT DO THEY? The man on the street gets laid off draws unemployment for 26 weeks while over 5000 failures in the financial "industry" each receive a bonus of over $1 million dollars this year! And it is all done for the good of "WE THE PEOPLE" so they say!
Concerning raw milk and food freedom, it seems more and more likely that the impositions of government will sooner or later be met with grass-roots political dissent and protest, since nowhere in the intermediaries upon which we rely (our representatives) does the message get through. This is unfortunate.
http://www.ethicurean.com/2009/07/20/raw-milk-2/
Those that glorify the ultra-minority, the one percent of one percent that is infected by living food, seek to disregard the 99.9 percent that are benefiting greatly from it’s consumption. Forest for the trees…….
Total up the ‘incidences’ from other food sources and I bet you’ll find raw milk, properly produced, is just as safe, if not safer than a majority of them. Then when you add in the increased health and vitality of those who consume it, you’ll see clearly that it’s a positive for society as a whole. The disinformation campaign being waged by the FDA is a scare campaign….to benefit the large corporate benefactors that essentially run the agency….(you know the processors that are profiting at a record pace, while the producers they ‘control’ are going bankrupt by the hour…)
We need to get more people drinking the stuff…for the more that know the LIE, the easier it will be to eventually call them on it. And eventually, when we get more raw milk drinkers in Congress…or even in the White House… things will have to change!
By milkfan on July 27th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Mark,
These were heifers that were in organic transition and were not even in milk yet. These young cows had only been on the farm a short period of time.
I was curious about this explanation. Havent you said in the past that your herd is closed, meaning that replacement heifers are born and raised on your dairy?
By Inoculated Mind on August 2nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Re: Kelly in Ohio,
My point exactly. Mark McAfee seems to think that the discovery of E. coli 0157:H7 is the same thing as its origin. Ive seen those papers about its origin in passing, but I think Mark would benefit a great deal by at least reading the abstracts and understanding something about microbiology before opining on the subject.
Every single program we enact, every program we implement, takes from one and gives to another. None of it is compatible with our constitution, or with goodness. Programs tend only to engage the law of unintended consequences, and make terrible trouble.
I think that we often do not appreciate the damage we do by acting outside of our base governmental rules. The tangled, wasteful, anti-market forces at work now in agriculture and medical care and banking and seemingly everywhere else, are a direct result of meddling with the constitutiona result of those infamous "special interests" manipulating our government to achieve this or that goal. That is how our food freedoms were appropriated. We allowed, even encouraged, government to leap-frog over its constitutional restraints, and in so doing allowed and encouraged government to prevent us from exercising our most basic rights.
That we have disconnected ourselves from our constitutional roots is no more evident than in the ubiquitous references to our form of government as a democracy. We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional republic, with democratically elected legislators. There is a world of difference between the two, and the main crux of that difference in the current context is that in our form of government, a majority may never vote away the rights of a minority. (Similarly, had we been sensitive to our roots, government never would have granted rights to corporations but would instead have recognized that government has no power to grant rightsonly God does that.)
Program Developer In Chief Obama is merely the most current icon of stolen freedoms. He may arguably be the most alarming in recent history (hes extraordinarily comfortable with the idea of centralized control and at least for the moment enjoys broad support) but he is nevertheless only one of many in a long trend that has been gaining momentum since the civil war. We are seeing the results in spades today in the FDA, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and so on. When will we learn?
That is why I do not support compromise with federal regulators. They should not be there in the first place, so to reach agreement on their powers is to participate functionally in the deconstruction of our republic. And even if that werent true (it is, but even if it werent) it is impossible to effectively fight battles over the details of all these rules and programs. They are endless, and so big, so ubiquitous, as to overwhelm any opposition. A small win in an isolated battle merely feels good and distracts from the reality that the war is being lost.
Do not allow yourselves to be sucked into a political discussion that includes microbiology. That sort of talk should be among individuals only and has no place in the text of federal government rules. Work instead to win back individual rights. The ONLY effective way to do that is to fight government with its own founding documents. Begin with the Declaration Of Independence (remember that thing?… all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights) and the constitution.
One fight, low to the ground.
What do these words mean to us in this 21st century?
CERTAIN thats an easy one FIXED WITHOUT DOUBT WITHOUT FAIL
UNALIENABLE another easy one THAT WHICH CANNOT BE SURRENDERED OR TAKEN AWAY { you will hear some say INALIENABLE that is not correct and a bit iffy in meaning}
But how do we define rights and liberty here in 2009?
Do we have the right or liberty to own a dog without a license, get married without a license, drive a car without a license, own a gun without a license, perform many jobs without a license, sell our "own" home without a license and of course sell a glass of milk without a license from our unregistered cow?
What would the Founding Fathers say of the condition of freedom in America today is it what they envisioned and risked their lives and shred their blood for? Or have we failed them?
cp
Since I am your favorite raw milk whipping boy producer to peck on…..here is the answer….
Four years ago we bought some young heifers to supplement our ever increasing need for raw milk….cause people love the stuff and kids thrive on it!!! and Doctors prescribe it to their patients!!
A closed herd does not mean that you never purchase another outside animal. It means that a farmer treats outside cows with a protocol and perhaps uses a time to transition them into the herd. A closed herd may very well bring in breeding stock and sell off extra cows that are excess. A closed herd is used to contain disease or limit other outside influences. In order for a cow to enter a closed herd she must be quarantined and tested etc….
I hope you all feel better now.
Before any of you raw milk haters speak one more word….you must see "FOOD, Inc."
Joel Salatin is my hero and Monsanto executives belong jail….do not blame your obesity, rampant immune depression and diabetes on OPDC or any other organic farmer.
Innoculated Mind…or what ever your real name is…please get ahold of CP and Lykke and treat them to a date and see "Food, Inc." You can all gag on movie junk food as you discover how greedy criminals have poisoned our food and sickened our country.
Your collective raw milk hating commentary propetuates the "FOOD INC" crime.
Mark McAfee
USDA Partners with Private Company to Help Sell Ear Tags to US Farmers and Ranchers
Despite overwhelming rejection by more then 90% of ALL our farmers they will not listen NAIS marches on!!!!
"CUI BONO" { TO WHOSE BENEFIT } Lucius Cassius a very popular ancient ROMMAN JUDGE’s mantra.
Mark, I dont recall raw milk being mentioned in the movie Food Inc., but E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS were discussed. The child died. Consider yourself lucky the kids in the 2006 outbreak didnt die.
cp
What is your point…do you hate me or do you hate raw milk? or both?
I am damn glad and over joyed that no child died in 2006 from raw milk!!
You still can not address the poor safety of pastueurized milk and three deaths in MA in 2007. Why is it that you can not address anything other than raw milk in your negative commentary? Is the discussion of raw milk with no deaths more important that the discussion of filthy dead milk that kill and create massive illness, through lactose intolerance and other pastuerizer resistant infectous processes. Your moral balance floors me!!??
What do you have to say about ParaTB and Johnes disease getting past the pastueurizer and the FDA and diary industry ignorring this fact? and Crohns becoming an epidemic?
Please answer this question…..
I saw "Food Inc" last evening….it moved me deeply and further compelled me that I am exactly on track with true north. You will not see me waiver one little bit. When Joel said that his chicken tested at 130 CFU and factory farmed chickens tested at 3600 CFU that is exactly the OPDC story. Food Inc could have just as easily used me and OPDC instead of Joel. Remember we are fighting the same fight and using the same mother nature. We are on the same paradigm page….I am terribly pround of Joel and his message.
When MIke Pollan concluded a speech with AG Kawamura ( our Sec of AG ) in Sac a few months ago he closed with….."we are sterilizing America…we need to eat more dirt and drink more raw milk".
CP….please become a relevant part of change…being a negative hater does nothing for anyone. Do you want improved immunity for children? How would you propose to do this naturally? How has it always been done? Raw Milk is the most common method and it has worked for 100,000 years. Vaccinations bypass the proper physiologic mechanisms required to generate normally evolved IgA immuno elements and it shocks the system creating side effects and illness. Not to mention the toxic garbage added to vaccines that maim and kill.
Mark
You are an inspiration, you articulate and clarify my thoughts. Much thanks and praise!
I’ve quoted you on the meatingplace blogs – boy howdy, lotta heat about industrial farming over there. You should drop in and plant some seeds; maybe you’d teach them too. You need to continue to preach to the choir here but I’d like to see you get into hotter water. We need Miguel’s pen over there. Their life depends on it.
Blair
From an interview with Sally Fallon by Susan Booth:
Our goal is unregulated direct sales of raw milk all through the country.
You’ve touoched, again, on a pivot-point issue. Besides using cash wherever possible and otherwise opting out of the system, and consuming stuff from LOCAL sources (specifically supporting local agriculture), what occurs to you for fighting low to the ground? Could you elaborate?
Will they let people who are not part of the Industry participate?I’m not sure how to answer any of those questions the want answered in order to become a member.I certainly can’t claim to be part of any food production or processing industry.
http://www.bovinevetonline.com/newsCN.asp?contentid=333667
Oh heck – have they shut the door now? I don’t remember having to answer a lot of questions – just remember having to opt out of a lot of advertising…. There are a handful of consumers, at least two PETA advocates, but mostly AG industry (lots of meat packers), gov’t & farmers. Some are open to new ideas but most are desperate to defend factory farming methods – irradiate, clone in a lab, or spray it with disinfectant, blame the consumer for undercooking – anything to avoid preventing the problem.
You are a dairy producer, an educator, you write about agriculture, microbiology, and you’re a small farmer – if Bill Marler and Sharon Zecharelli (sp?) can post there, I don’t see why you can’t. Tell them you’re a soil consultant to farmers. Well, you are.
I’ve gotten my share of name-calling but they haven’t kicked me off yet.
They’re blogging about e.coli today.
-Blair
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/
"We all need to learn to lose our fear and constructively confront those who think they are in power to control every aspect of our lives. Two people apparently died between 1998 and 2005 from drinking raw milk. During the same time over 1 million died from smoking, over 900,000 died from doctor prescribed and government approved drugs and hundreds died from industrialized foods contaminated with pathogens. (These numbers are readily available on government websites.)"
The above is about Canada, the US is no different.
Lets see….facts about health promoting foods; that box of vitamin fortified cereal is "good" for you? It is so processed vitamins are required to be added for it to any nutritional value and not to forget the large amount of sugars added to make it palatable and the chemicals to preserve it, yes indeed, that is nutritious-NOT.
People get sick from lunch meats more often than raw milk. Yet, tptb don’t ban them, nor are they required to label the potential dangers. Why is that?
The milk from the factory dairies has to be boiled or it will kill millions. It seems that if people knew exactly how milk was processed, less would consume the pasteurized milk or any other dairy from the stores.
I have yet to read or hear why foods that cause the most illnesses are still legal? Why they aren’t banned or at least required to label the "potential" pathogen causing illnesses on the packages, Why aren’t signs up in the stores?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/08/joel-salatin-americas-most-influential-farmer.php
"MG: In your opinion, what’s the biggest problem with the food industry in the U.S.?
JS: Wow, where do I start? Number one is that it destroys soil. Absolutely and completely. "
Will there ever be change?
By low to the ground I meant that the fight can only be won by attacking the fundamental problem, which is the ignoring of restraints place on the federal government by our constitution and other founding documents. This means high court constitutional challenges.
Metaphorically: If your neighbor builds a storage shed on your land, the obvious solution is to have the thing moved to his land or torn down. If you opt instead to discuss with your neighbor ways to make the offending building more tolerable to you by, say, making it smaller or more attractive, you are in fact giving tacit approval to his use of your property. The immediate result is functional loss of your land. (There happens to be a legal codification of that process called adverse possession, better known as squatters rights.)
In the context of this discussion, the federal government is the neighbor; the usurpation of individual rights the shed; our haggling about the level and form of federal control the discussion about the sheds qualities. Just as the metaphorical neighbor got control of our property by engaging us in a discussion about how to optimize the condition of the shed, we have allowed the feds to take control of our (unalienable) rights by discussing the details of how the federal government can best control and restrain what is, according to natural law, legal behavior.
I advocate fighting the foundational battle for human rights. That means using natural law and our founding documents to challenge the federal governments right to control legal behavior. There is nothing illegal about raw milk. We should not be discussing "how" the federal government may regulate it, but whether they may regulate it at all.
A similar sort of plan has been employed successfully to control corporate usurpation of citizens rights: