The Michael Schmidt Case Helps Explain Why Food Rights Must Be the Guiding Force in the Struggle Over Raw Milk
Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 05:12PM 
Ontario Judge Paul KowarskyI spoke last evening before a group of about 35 attendees at the Weston A. Price Foundation's Princeton, NJ, chapter. I try in my talks, as I do here on the blog, to emphasize my belief that raw milk is a proxy issue for food rights.
Yet last evening, a number of the questions and comments concerned raw milk’s supposed protective and health-giving powers. Doesn’t good bacteria in raw milk from pasture-fed cows overwhelm pathogens that might be present? Doesn’t that mean you can’t become seriously ill from raw milk? Isn’t pasteurized milk more likely to contain pathogens than raw milk?
I tried to explain that there is very limited data on the first question, and what little there is doesn’t support the notion that milk from pasture-fed cows won’t allow pathogen growth. I also said that people can become seriously ill from raw milk, as they can from pasteurized milk. And, once again with incomplete data, I said I thought that what there is indicates raw milk is riskier than pasteurized milk, but that the entire category of dairy products is low on the food-borne illness totem pole.
Given the dearth of data, and the fact that raw milk doesn’t appear to be a serious health risk in its own rite, then the real issue is food rights, which brings me back to the Michael Schmidt decision in Ontario last week. And that is where I thought Judge Paul Kowarsky began to set some interesting parameters.
He may not have spoken about food rights, but he spoke to an area very close: the right of individuals to enter into private contracts in order to access the foods of their choice. More Americans are choosing private arrangements—for example, C.A.R.E., the largest buying group in the U.S. in Pennsylvania, has grown to 5,500 members over the last few years. The right to private arrangements is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 10) and known as “the Contract clause”, though admittedly it was included for different reasons at the time; food rights wasn’t much of an issue in the late 1700s.
Repeatedly in his decision, Judge Kowarsky affirmed the right of individuals to enter into private agreements to access raw milk:
- “Is the defendant guilty of the offences with which he is charged or does the fact that he sells his milk and milk products only to paid-up members of his Cow Share Program exculpate him?”
- “If the ultimate purpose of regulatory legislation is to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, especially those who are particularly vulnerable, do those members of society who expressly waive the need for protection, still need the protection?” …if, in consuming raw milk per se the cow share members are not committing an unlawful act and they wish to continue to do that within the parameters of the essentially private cow share program, why should they be forced to be bound by legislation which is intrinsically aimed at the vulnerable—those who need the protection?”
- “These findings support the existence of a valid private agreement between the defendant and the cow share members in terms of which he is responsible for the upkeep of the cows and the provision of milk for the membership. The responsibility of the members is to pay a fee for the upkeep of the cows, the production of the dairy products, and their delivery.”
- “In my view, the establishment of the cow-share program creates a sharing of ownership of the cows amongst the members…”
It’s interesting that the Dairy Farmers of Ontario are advocating an appeal of the Michael Schmidt case since, as Steve Bemis suggests in his comment following my previous post, the judge didn’t make any changes in legislation. Quite the opposite, as the judge concluded his decision by stating: “Indeed, the milk marketing legislation remains of full force and effect until such time as it is amended or revoked by the Legislature…”
And Canadian dairy farmers shouldn’t be worried about too many of their brethren selling raw milk. They have a much sweeter deal, I am told, than American dairy farmers, with price supports that enable them to receive on the order of $3 to $4 a gallon for their conventional and organic milk, versus $1 to $1.50 a gallon in the U.S.
I can only assume the Ontario dairy organization is worried that Judge Kowarsky’s decision could begin to erode its complete control of the dairy system. Control is what a lot of this is about, and only guarantees and exercise of rights can counter the forces of control.
Reader Comments (27)
http://www.freshplaza.com/news_detail.asp?id=16107
"$5.99 gallon of organic milk at Safeway's Natomas store. "
Wasn't there negative statements made in the past about the cost of raw milk? Wonder what their definition of "organic" is? Again, where is the money going?
The profits in the dairy industry are mostly realized by the large processors and the retailers, to a smaller extent. Keep in mind that the processors not only pasteurize and homogenize the milk, they also separate out the entire cream content, add back just enough to make 2% or 3% milk (or none for skim milk) and use the rest to create the value-added and highly profitable products like butter and ice cream.
Food Safety's Biggest Challenge: The American Diet
by Bruce Clark | Jan 27, 2010 [the Clark of MarlerClark]
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/01/food-safetys-biggest-challenge-the-american-diet/
That is a very surprising article from Marler & Clark, and with the exception of his prescription for what constitutes a healthy diet I'd have to say that I generally agree with it. The sad fact is that the drive towards the complete industrialization of our food supply resulting in cheap, de-vitalized products based primarily on corn and soy is the root cause of our exploding health care costs. No amount of tinkering with the health insurance industry is going to do anything about containing costs while cancer, CHD, obesity, autism and auto-immune disease rates continue to increase.
Another sad fact is that the established medical community does recognize diet as being a root cause in a few isolated instances, but fails to generalize and mimics our society in failing to recognize any link between what we eat and chronic diseases. Celiac disease is an auto-immune disorder known to be caused by an intolerance to glutenous grains, yet even though there is published research linking unfermented grains to other auto-immune disorders you'll never hear a neurologist suggest that you change your diet. (http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Arthritis%20PDF.pdf and http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/Cereal%20article.pdf )
Likewise, do an Internet search for "ketogenic diet epilepsy" and you'll find thousands of entries explaining that it's been known for eighty years that a ketogenic diet can completely eliminate epileptic seizures, but drugs are so much easier, and because it's just "too hard" to stay on that diet neurologists only reluctantly bring it up when patients can't tolerate the ant-convulsive meds. (http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/ketogenic-diet-for-epilepsy) For the uninitiated, a "ketogenic" diet is one that induces ketosis by eliminating all simple carbohydrates. Yes - it's just the Adkins diet. (And of course, a ketogenic diet also eliminates soy, corn and wheat, which as we all know can be potent allergens and very dangerous in a whole, unfermented form.)
And of course, cancer is the result of other biochemical failures of the immune system. Your immune system can only function properly when you consume enough vitamin D in your diet, and how many people have you heard of who are diagnosed with cancer or other auto-immune diseases over the winter when few people take cod liver oil and nobody in the Northern states is making D3 from sun exposure?
Sorry for the rant, I'll shut up now. :-)
btw, Bob Hayles left a very biting and amusing comment on the Clark article.
I have lost count of the number of friends and acquaintances who have cured an illness with diet or alternative medicine and their conventional doctor flat out refused to believe it possible. Conventional medicine is stuck in a paradigm where not only can they not see what is wrong with their approach, they refuse to believe any other approach could possibly work, no matter the evidence.
I left my two bits at Marlers site along with Bob Hayles.
I think is it a miracle that nutrition as a food safety issue is even being discussed at Marlers site....that is a radical change in its own right. Nutrition is but a stones throw away from building immunity though raw milk and probiotic foods. These are discussions of prevention ( a bullet proof pathogen proof human immune system is the most essential HACCP kill step missing in America ) and that is directly related to food safety.
One step at a time....Marler and his partner Clark ain't stupid.
He is a crazy like a fox and smart as ever. He is also rich and dominates a niche....He is the Go To Knight in Shining Armor for the sickened weak immune system victums of our system. That is not going to change any time soon. But he may yet come arround.
Utterings of nutrition and food safety in the same breath... is a huge first step.
Mark
For the sake of their client what are they genuinely interested in, proof of causation in court as it pertains to objective scientific knowledge or on biased information that hinges on the accepted status quo of the powers that be?
Peoples increased awareness as reflected in debates such as those on this site have prompted them to search hence their article.
Ken Conrad
You have Marler all wrong. He is not interested in winning lawsuits....that takes way to much work and time. He is interested in scaring the living hell out of big insurance companies with his bulls eye track record of killer verdicts. He does not need to try cases any more....he just needs to file cases and put his psycho drama scare party into full swing. The mere mention of his legal bulldozer name strikes fear into the insurance companies and their agents.
The facts of a case take third place far behind the name Bill Marler and his bull dozer image. Insurance companies would much rather settle for certainty than to go into the legal casino with Bull Dozer Bill.
I know....been there....done that!!
Insurance companies do not like legal craps, Roulette or 21....especially with Bill Marler.
On the lighter side....here is quite possibly the cleanest raw milk in the world....I have never ever seen raw milk produced more cleanly. I am serious....cows entire bodies washed by hand prior to each milking...surgical hand scrubbing prior to milking....it is rediculous but precious and really good stuff. These people are really trying hard.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGkM4zNEsM&feature=related
Enjoy the kids as they tell the story of their raw milk....a great watch.
Mike Pollan was on Oprah last night. Food Inc was the subject....he hit on the "Whole Foods diet and natural unprocessed foods really hard. The message of illness being related to processed foods is getting out.
Mark McAfee
As soon as the possibility exists of the money flow street being made two way, Marler would be out of bidness...I doubt Marler could then get a job asking, "Do you want fries with that?"
Want to learn a LOT about Bill Marler and his thinking? Go to any one of a number of web search sites showing federal elections commission contribution filings and type in the zip code 98104-7072, the zip code of Marler/Clark in Seattle. From the list of names given for that zip, click on William Marler, William Marler, Attorney, Marler/Clark, Attorneys, Marler/Clark LLP, and Marler/Clark LLP PS.
You can learn a lot by who he contributes to...DSCC/10K, DNC/4K, Debbie Stabinaw for senate in Michigan $500 (he lives in Seattle, WA) Friends of Dick Durbin (Illinois) $2700, Barak Obama for President a total of $11,500 in 4 checks (isn't that illegal?), and the Al Franken Recount Fund got $5,000 of Marler's money.
Need to know any more to know Marler is scum? I don't.
I am proud to announce that after six months and intensive inspections...OPDC is the first cow dairy in CA to be "Animal Welfare Approved".
See the certification at www.organicpastures.com
This non profit certification is very hard to get and requires all kinds of pro-animal systems and conditions. Just sharing about something near and dear to us.
My son and daughter Aaron and Kaleigh get all the credit...it was their idea and their hardwork that deserves the credit for this certification.
Mark
Mark
Chief Justice of the United States 1969-1986 Warren Burger
Its not just those of us unlearned in the law that see that there is something very wrong with the justice SYSTEM. Has anything changed in the last 23 years since Warren Burger made that statement?
Uhhh, Bob, I'm no real fan of Bill Marler, yet I've gotta tell ya, my respect for him rose a little to see how he's contributed to the Dems...I'd figured him for a solid Repug. LOL!
You're stretching here. I thought you had dug up something seriously bad.... I'm disappointed.
Dat Dem Goatmaid
Notably, this is where the god “smart” has taken us. I have really had it up to here with the endless accolades we hear from media and everywhere that so-and-so is “smart” and therefore deserving respect and adulation. Smart has never served us well. “Good,” on the other hand, can save us, if we can only learn to appreciate it. I doubt that it will ever happen, especially in our tort system, since “good” doesn’t conjure up images of free money. What the average plaintiff wants is the opposite---a big dog with sharp teeth and a low sensitivity threshold who plays the game hard and sleeps well afterward. How about this for a complete loser of a slogan: “Mr. Smith is the lawyer for you! He’s a good and humble man!”
My points were:
First, his "outside money" contributions to candidates in states nowhere near where he lives. While it is legal, I find it little different than foreign nationals trying to contribute to any campaigns in the US. Note I didn't mention any liberal dems in his own state...which he also supported heavily with his checkbook. That is strike one on his character.
Strike two is his apparent circumventing of contribution limit laws regarding contribution amounts to Barak Obama. If the FEC filings are correct, he intentionally broke election laws...and showed up to collect strike two regarding his lack of character.
Then there is strike three...and the worst...showing his garbage character...his financial support of babymaker...and babydenier...John Edwards. My mom was a pretty smart lady, and she taught my sister and I that you are known by the company you keep. Marler's support of scumbag and fellow ambulance chasing shyster John Edwards tells us all we need to know about his character.