Our Constitution May Ban State-Sponsored Religion, But We’ve Found One to Grab Onto
Sunday, January 3, 2010 at 03:50PM 
When food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler asked me to write an article for his law firm’s Food Safety News a couple weeks back, I thought it represented a potential opportunity to begin to get past the emotion that overlays so much of the debate over raw milk.
I even had secret thoughts that I could help promote movement toward a political settlement of the raw milk war. Eventually, that’s what will need to happen to end the ridiculous trend of undercover investigations (most recently in Missouri, which even the established local paper can't believe), misuse of scientific testing (once again in New York state, just before Christmas, against Chuck Phippen's Breese Hollow dairy, for the eighth time), and abuse of licensing power (in Wisconsin). And as we know, more than raw milk is at stake--as a number of readers have pointed out here, raw milk is a proxy issue for the fear mongering that goes on over health care and food safety in general.
But as I read through the comments of my previous couple of posts, it seems to me the religion analogy may be able to inform us further.
In the FSN article, I pointed out that both sides in the raw milk debate see themselves as saving lives. Out of this fervent desire comes a negative consequence: those who oppose one's own viewpoint are seen as not valuing life as highly as the other side.
There’s another aspect of religion that deserves attention. As an aside, I should say I make the comments that follow knowing that religion can be a dangerous area for a writer or other creative type to wade into. Wars have been fought over religion, and in recent years, a Middle East country (Iran) condemned a writer (Salman Rushdie) to death (since lifted), and zealots have sought to kill a Danish cartoonist for his creations.
When you come down to it, most religions are faith-based. That is, adherents believe that certain things are true, based on the founders’ teachings, and on stories and ideas compiled by followers (as expressed in the Bible, the Koran, etc.). Indeed, the Bible might be viewed as a series of anecdotes, followed by life lessons. Sometimes adherents see events in their own lives that seem to further validate their beliefs (a relative who recovers from a near-death experience, or a non-believer who is seemingly punished, for example).
Aside from such anecdotal evidence, the fundamental underlying beliefs, though, have never been independently verified, as it were. Yet they are so strong that they guide individual and group behavior to phenomenal extents. It’s useless to try to talk people out of their religious beliefs on the basis that they haven’t been completely proven.
Our country’s founders understood quite well the temptations, and dangers, of trying to impose religious beliefs on citizens. So well, that they made it the first protection, even before freedom of speech, of the Constitution’s first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That was a revolution in itself, since nearly all countries of that day, including England, which most colonists had fled, were governed by state-sponsored religion.
You probably know where I’m going with this. Without belaboring the point, let’s just say that the arguments over raw milk, and food safety in general, have a religious tone to them. Food poisoning lawyer Bill Marler’s (and CP’s) continual references to his videos of sick kids remind me of preachers who always have a Biblical story to “prove” that you must believe. Sure, there are lessons in the story of David and Goliath, but the proverbial David isn’t always victorious in real life.
Raw milk has helped many people’s health, but it isn’t a cure-all for everyone. And very occasionally, people become ill from it. Some at the Weston A. Price Foundation hold onto a belief in competitive exclusion--that raw milk from grass-fed cows can't support the growth of pathogens, and therefore outbreaks of illness couldn't have been caused by raw milk--despite considerable evidence to the contrary.
While it’s important to point out that the two sides each have an argument, the problem is that one side—the side that believes Marler’s videos represent truth and that we must eradicate all germs with all the tools at our disposal—holds the power. Its gospel might even be seen as a modern-day version of the state-sponsored religion our founders were so afraid of.
The article a few people refer to in Scientific American, an important bastion of scientific research and ideas, is refreshing for pointing out the incompleteness of our knowledge, and essentially making the point that huge gaps remain in our understanding of how our bodies function. “…the human microbial environment… is still largely uncharacterized… Companies have embraced aspects of microbial research, spreading antibacterials to kill broad swaths of microbes or promoting probiotic foods to introduce other groups of bacteria into the body. These extremes, however, can make scientists in the field squirm.”
What the article doesn’t say, but I will, is that we as a society have chosen to fill in the knowledge gaps Scientific American refers to with our beliefs, a religion of sorts. Those who hold power today are determined to continue “spreading antibacterials to kill broad swaths of microbes”—whether through enforced pasteurization, irradiation of veggies, or adding ammonia to meat--as a function of their belief that they are saving lives. Legislation (HR 2749, S510) enforcing that notion is very close to becoming law under the guise of “food safety.”
It was Jesus who said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they are doing.” I wish I could say that here, but those who hold power and want to tell us what we can and can’t eat do know what they are doing. Exercising control and, for some, making money, lots of money.
***
I wrote a companion piece to my previous post about the Hazon Food Conference at Grist.org.
Reader Comments (30)
Where do we begin to draw the line in all this madness. Perhaps a good place to start is on the small farm allow my farmer and I our right to engage in a private contract where he is free to sell me raw milk without any interference? I can freely in any state buy cigarettes that gave my father lung cancer causing his death at 52 years of age but inorder to purchase raw milk that I believe has extend my life span not so easy. Something is very very wrong with this picture.
http://hushmoney.org/501c3-myths.htm
Raw milk is indeed a matter, which a court cannot rule on. A scientific argument cannot be decided by the court. It just becomes a scientific pissing contest as I witnessed at our raw milk trial here in Canada.
Therefor the issue is a question of individual liberty and rights .
The argument of protecting us from our self creates again a precedent for creating another dictatorship of a different kind. If we are consenting silently to this process we are no different than the Germans in 1933.
For some this sounds silly. For me this is real. This time around we should know better.
That is because the argument was science vs. religion. And, a lack of caring about food safety. You could go a long way if you even pretended to care about the public health concerns.
A federal judge in 1988 decided that raw milk even if produced in a safe manner could not be produced safely...that it was inherently unsafe....and banned it in interstate commerce hence CFR 1240.61 was made public law by the FDA. That judge decided what was safe and what was not safe...that was a question of data and science not a question of law.
Judges are frowned upon for making law...but those with balls do exactly that....they can act with conscience and rule to make things right or make them wrong as well...certainly juries can do that for sure.
The problem with juries is that they are timid, scared and unconscious.
The real change is one that starts and grows with the people....when the tipping point is achieved the culture of what is culturally accepted is changed as well.
A great example of this was the passage of the USDA NOP ( National Organic Plan ) in 2002. It took 30 years to come from Earl Butts in 1972 saying "when you hear the word organic think starvation" to organic becoming national policy.
The consumption and acceptance of raw milk and the emergence of supportive science will do exactly the same....I give it ten years. The internet shortens time.
As the inner ecosystems of people are deforested and the naked inner earth suffers as shown by ever more dramatic curves showing us all the increasing disease tragedy....it will become clear as a bell that raw milk can not be easily replaced as a biodiversity reseeding food.
It has been suggested by CP that pharma grade probiotics should be consumed prior to drinking raw milk....not a bad idea...however...but.... do not ever think for one second that monocultures of pharma probiotics will ever replace the biodiversity found in nature.
A rain forest when destroyed is not remade be replanting some commercial trees in a square pattern. The soil erosion and macro and micro scopic life destruction is complete and takes centuries to reestablish...if ever. The parallels are exact....Crohns even looks like the soil erosion of a deforested area. If the earth could cry she we share her pain verbally.
Biodiversity is biodiversity and a rain forest is a rain forest...the same goes for the human gut. Raw milk and fermented raw milk and other whole foods are the foods that feed our inner ecosystems and keep the trillion random iinteractive immunities working. Modern SAD food, antibiotics, sterile foods, preserved foods, GMO junk, fake sugars, fake fats, pastuerized everything are the hidden "slash and burn" and gutting out of our inner rain forests.
As for religion....Jesus drank raw milk... end of story....the rest is all market greed, scientific ignorance and Big Ag FDA BS. As for me having a loose screw....thank god for loose screws. It appears that those that have all their screws tight have lost their minds just like unconscious Lemmings marching obediently off a cliff.
Mark
No, the decision was made because of the well-documented illnesses and deaths from Salmonella Dublin (including in an independent study at UCLA that raw milkers backed). Historically, these problems with raw milk were compounded by the emergence of the AIDS epidemic. The judge made the right decision at the time.
Is raw milk different today?
"As for religion....Jesus drank raw milk... end of story...."
From a court point-of-view, who cares what Jesus drank?
It would appear that the raw milkers problems are so convoluted so intermeshed so entwined with half-truths falsehoods and tyranny that our best hope is to take back our STOLEN FREEDOMS.
Some reading material from the other side of the AIDS story. What is the truth dare we ask?
http://www.whale.to/aids.html
I see that you have not responded to my posts about the poisonous meat.
I can only conclude that you agree with the regulators that this product is safe and it is ok to injure and kill innocent children.
You are right, that the courts have made decisions based on statistics and numbers presented by both sides. Who ever was more convincing got the ruling in their favor.
The judge at our trial set out the objectives and parametersl and said in plain language, quote: courts cannot settle scientific disputes. Period.
In the history of mankind whenever courts took on the role of making a decision based on science presented to them, the results we know. Who ever disputed that the earth was round was put to death.
Yes we get sucked into the illusion that courts have the right to rule on scientific arguments.
There is no way that this is the solution how we will regulate in future the raw milk trade.
Courts can force both sides to come up with a procedure within the framework of the constitution. Otherwise everything becomes arbitrary.
If Government is given the power to regulate safety and protection we become dependent and loose the understanding that only we can be responsible for ourselves, therefor we consenting to become slaves. Individual responsibility is utmost important in this process, if we want to get somewhere.
Scientific arguments can be resolved IF both sides agree to jointly research the issue together without a predetermined agenda, and commercial interests.
Happy new year
Michael
Our personel view of our experience of either will effect the outcome.
However if we pair it down to what is most important, our right to view each of the three is where our true freedom lies.
I learned early on that truth always resides in the balance.
In the case of raw milk the State is right, Weston A Price is right, we are right at any given moment.
Trends and time will bare the true result, if we use the tools available for a balanced disucussion we can come to a better understanding of the risks.
Abuse the tools for personel belief and opposites will prevail.
As David pointed out both sides are at time rabid of their belief, as someone who has been at this whole raw milk thing for over a decade now, a few things have shown themselves to be true...
The majority of cows in the U.S. & Canada are infected with several human short and long term pathogens, this includes the raw milk herds... that will not cease just because they are on all grass, or organic or born on no grain, or in a herd under a specific size.
There are herds that are free of these problems..but none to date that I have seen or talked to thier managers are grass fed, no grain herds.
They have been closed for a very long time and as producers we need to expand these cow families if we are ever to have a chance in saving the abilty and then the right to consume milk in its natural form.
We have the tools available to prove what we feel/experience to be true, as long as many from different view points are looking at the same test paramitors and agree it is of specific information.
That is now taking place...but to blindly say that absolutes exsist is not gaining us any favors with those who believe they are intrusted to keep the public safe.
Another twist to What David eluded to is what belief system you are leaning to will influence your view point.
Industry and State more often has a mindset of exploitation...foodies, raw milk drinkers & environmentalists, tend to be in the communal camp..both can cross over and often do, its those cross over moments true understanding comes about..closing your eyes at the cross roads is not an excuse for the extreme.
Tim Wightman
Science versus religion?
Both side of the debate have with justification accused each other of being religious. However any religious fervor that may exist stems from our desire to control or our desire to be free. The emotions and fear mongering surrounding the debate of opposing scientific theories is secondary.
Both sides claim that there interpretation of the science is correct or rather that science is on their side yet there still remains a lingering ambiguity surrounding their arguments. How can the courts rule with any credibility on the so called science of this issue? Michael Schmidt is indeed correct when he says it becomes a “scientific pissing contest.”
The only argument that holds any water in this debate has to do with freedom of choice.
Ken Conrad
Unfortunately, although the purpose of the law can be very clear, the regulations are often tainted by the interpretations of the regulators. This can be an honest difference of opinion or it can be a more sinister attempt by the department to extend or even circumvent the law.
As an example, let's look at a recent beef recall. This beef was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. However, due to a 1999 change in USDA regulations, intact steak contaminated with this organism is not considered "adulterated". This little change was no doubt a big boon to the beef industry, although benefiting the beef industry is not the purpose of our food safety laws. Several people were sickened by this beef because it underwent further processing to tenderize it. There is no public health rationale to allow contaminated meat into the food chain. There is only a financial one.
So, to try to get back to the topic of religion and faith, how can we have faith in a bureaucracy that harasses and potentially entraps two young farm girls over two gallons of milk while they turn a blind eye to thousands of pounds of potentially deadly meat?
https://www.farmtoconsumer.net/Handbooks.asp
In fact the link does work; you may need to cut and paste into your browser because (I think) it's in the high-security "https" format which is used for purchases. It appears that such URL's cannot be accepted by this blog as hyperlinks. I'm guessing on this, since I'm not a computer expert.
RELAX: this is not "desire in the raw milk movement ... to keep these documents/video hidden." It's a system issue. If you don't have the link, just go to ftcldf.org and click on the "Shop Our Online Store" button. Realmilk.com gets you there with the hyperlink in the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund box on the splash page.
I agree that these materials should be free. Unfortunately, system mechanics are required to accept/process payments and to arrange downloads. This kind of software is not free. Private organizations by definition (and choice - there's that word again) are unlike government agencies with taxpayer funded budgets for outreach and education. Are you aware of any sources of funding for the costs in getting these kinds of materials prepared and distributed widely for free?
I would love more than most anything right now to know if you work for the FDA. Most reasonable people will bend and adjust their views with reason. It is fair to say that even I do that.
You are blindly adamant and that is a sure sign of a paycheck being involved. The use of a weird non-name is a dead ringer....
I agree with Michael.....science is a moneyed pissing contest used and abused to score hits when marketing products. I saw this when I spoke at Rutgers. Every damn red brick science lab building was named after a Pharma Company. Now thats objective isn't it.
Back to the real world of building and teaching to the raw milk tipping point. My ten year outlook for raw milk being widely accepted is ticking away. The 1850 dairies in CA are still nearing the edge if not going over it....they are getting $15 per cwt and need $17 to survive. Economics is more Darwin than anything else on planet earth. Dollar votes and bankruptcy will change things that is for sure. It already has.
Mark
I compliment you on your understanding of history and the issues. This is obviously something that takes time, investigation, access and connection to understand...another dead ringer for my vote that you are a FDA TCP reader, writer and reporter. Common people do not have access to the information you readily access.
Tag you are it!! Your cover is blown!
Since you are so close to the data, please answer me this one question and save me some time, why did the federal government direct CDFA to exempt raw milk from the CA Milk Pool? We have been fighting over this issue for years. Then on the day after christmas a letter was sent out to all CA Milk Pool producers-handlers advising everyone that Raw Milk for Human Consumption was now exempt from the MilkPool. Just like that.....no new laws. Insiders have shared with us that it was not the CDFA Milk Pool that acted to do this...rather it was the feds that directed CDFA and the Milk Pool branch to drop the fight and exclude Raw Milk ( class 1 ) from reporting requirements. This initially blew my mind...it was indeed a happy christmas indeed...now I am trying to read into the decision and figuer out why....there must be a why (and an authority)?
In the past, it seems that all raw milk good things from government have been attached to a grenade with a missing pin.
Do you know why? Wondering if I should dive for cover or just be thankful.
I really do not think it is because the FDA loves me.
Mark
"It may be necessary to make a public utility out of agriculture EVERY plowed field would have its PERMIT sticking on its post" Henry Wallace Former US Ag. Sec. 1933-1940 former US Vice Pres. 1941-1945 and former US Commerce Sec. 1945-1946 Is he just an isolated case was he just a loose cannon???
"Food is power WE use it to CONTROL behavior" Catherine Bertini Former US Assistant Ag. Sec. and former UN World Food Program Executive
These statements should frighten ALL of us since we have witness over the last few years the loaded weapons shamelessly pointed at peaceful American small farm families!
What is the agenda?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16763
The National Animal Identification System by Randy Ananda
Scroll down to to see a picture of the pathic cows in one America's aproved animal Gulags. Perhaps there ought to be a LAW aganist feeding the ice cream made from these cows to anyones child or anyones elderly parents? But of course we can just boil this factory stuff and all is well!!!
Independent science get skewed?
Ahem. (smile).
Lykke is a Danish name that means "good fortune, happiness" that is popular in the Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden...drum roll please...and is FEMININE. For clarification, I believe it is pronounced "like-ee."
I'll put money on the fact that Lykke is a woman, so it's probably unnecessary to still refer to Lykke as "s/he" :)
Thanks for the research....it now makes a little more sense.
Why the staunch position taken by Lykke?....never bending and never allowing sollid science to take its rightful place in discussion. Raw milk has its enemies the greatest of which is the National Processors Alliances and National Dairy Coops, DFA and the FDA that rules the PMO and NCIMS.
Lykke must be working for them somehow.
Mark