Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, the target of a suit by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, on behalf of Iowa cow-share owners. Can the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund find a judge in this country willing to take a strong stand endorsing the right of individuals to organize privately to obtain raw milk? After a sixteen-year battle, raw dairyman Michael Schmidt found a judge who last month took a strong stand in his favor, dismissing 19 counts of violating Ontario’s dairy laws.
But in this country, the FTCLDF has failed thus far in New York with Meadowsweet Dairy, both in arguments before New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets and before a state judge; the case is now awaiting a verdict from state appeals judges. (For extensivebackground on both the Michael Schmidt and Meadowsweet cases, please search the blog under those names.)
Now, in a new tack, the FTCLDF has filed suit (referred to as a “petition” in Iowa) on behalf of individual cow-share owners rather than farmers, seeking an endorsement of private contractual access to raw milk.
According to the suit, an Amish farmer boarding cows owned by Iowa raw milk drinkers Mindy Slippy and Charles Freitag received a letter from Iowa’s Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship stating “that unless the farmer stopped doing what he was doing, i.e. participating in the Agistment Agrements, by February 13, 2009,the Department would ‘terminate your milking permit.’ Upon receipt of this letter from IDALS, the farmer stopped taking care of, tending to and managing the cows on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Since the issuance of the February 2009 letter from IDALS, Plaintiffs have not been allowed to enjoy the benefits of their property and the fruits of their contracts they entered into with the farmer, i.e., they have not been allowed to obtain or consume the unpasteurized, inprocessed milk and other dairy products from their own cows. Plaintiffs have not bought and do not buy raw milk or raw dairy products from the Iowa farmer. Plaintiffs are being damaged and are suffering an injury in fact by the action taken by IDALS. Specifically, Plaintiffs are being deprived of their fundamental and inalienable right of (a) using their own property; (b) providing for the care and well being of themselves and their families by consuming the food of their own choice; and (c) enjoying the benefits of their contracts with the farmer.” (The Amish farmer, who is unnamed, didn’t want to join in the case, the suit indicated.)
The FTCLDF case cites both the Iowa Constitution’s Inalienable Rights Clause and the U.S. Constitution’s provision of a right to privacy.
The defendant in the case is Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey, who is described on his department’s web site as “a fourth-generation Iowa farmer that grows corn and soybeans on his farm near Spirit Lake. He started farming with his grandfather, Sid Northey, after graduating from Iowa State University in 1981.”
Interestingly, Northey is one of the few agriculture administrators to be elected. According to the web site, “The people of Iowa elected Northey to be Secretary of Agriculture in November of 2006 and he was sworn in on January 2, 2007. Northey ran on a platform of expanding opportunities in renewable energy, promoting conservation and stewardship, and telling the story of Iowa agriculture.”
I wonder how “the story” of Iowa denying individuals access to milk from their own cows is going to play on the farms of Iowa?
The suit should encourage further the emergence of raw milk as a political issue in the corn and soybean state. Newly introduced legislation would allow raw milk sales and delivery from farms.
I see this suit as building on Steve Bemis’ recent distinction (following my Feb. 5 post) between consumers and individuals who organize themselves privately. He noted that “the laws more and more talk about ‘consumers’ and then define the word broadly – as anyone who ‘consumes’ anything, which is eventually argued to mean any human with a pulse. This blurring of distinctions then morphs into talk about ‘consumers’ this and ‘consumers’ that, effectively obliterating the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private.’
“If the state has an interest, it should be limited to ‘protecting’ the ‘public.’ This was a critical part of Michael Schmidt’s case, in which the judge carefully took the health statute apart and revealed that it was designed to protect the public. Not the private.
“The word ‘consumer’ blurs this distinction, and I believe should be avoided. Let’s talk about people who enter into cow-shares as ‘private contracting parties’ …Those that purchase at retail in stores are arguably the ‘public’ and may require more regulation to protect them.”
I agree. And if a judge can be persuaded to seriously examine the distinction, the suit could plow new legal ground in the food rights arena.
***
I’ve just posted an assessment at Grist of a shift in tactics by federal and state officials in clamping down on raw milk producers.
The FTCLDF told us that the farmshare/cowshare model was a legal and valid concept, but they have yet to win a legal challenge to this concept. At least 2 years with Meadowsweet in NY, 6 years in WI, and where are the victories? And now we’re being told that they may not have enough money to represent all of us if the state comes after us, but are willing to take more of our money if we want representation. That sounds like extortion to me. Are they genuinely working in our best interest, or only interested in lining their own pockets?
Good luck to Iowa, they’ll need it.
Christmas Eve, in freezing weather, a protester chained himself to the WI governor’s mansion over people’s RIGHT to make their own nutritional choices. Do you know how many people showed up in support? One…and he was the brother of another farmer being persecuted, Max Kane.
Here in Georgia, I have started a protest in response to the state ag department and the FDA’s forced dumping of LEGALLY purchased raw milk from South Carolina. The protest is happening, but it has been stalled a bit and a part of the reason is a lack of participation…so far only two consumers have contacted me wanting me to pick up milk for them in defiance of the government…and two gallons will just get ignored as insignificant…so I delay while I drum up additional support.
I would guess that the FTCLDF is in much the same situation…lots of folks talking, lots of folks complaining, but not so many actually whipping out their checkbooks…
…and its not just whipping out checkbooks or standing with a man chained to the WI governor’s mansion or buying some milk for a protest in Georgia….
How many here do something…anything…besides reading here and preaching to the choir? How many here have written even ONE letter to an elected official pleading our case and demanding the right to make our own nutritional choices? I personally set aside an hour a day 5 days a week (5-6am, Mon-Fri) to write two letters a day to SOMEONE…10 letters a week…how many have written even 10 letters TOTAL?
DO something folks. Write the FTCLDF a check. Support an ongoing protest. Hell…start YOUR OWN protest…but DO something, don’t just sit and complain.
Otherwise, you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
the meadowsweet situation does not involve a herdshare/cowshare. in meadowsweet, the owner of the herd is a limited liability company.
same for wisconsin. in wisconsin, i’ve seen LLC’s own the cows, i’ve seen "associations" own an interest in a permit, and i’ve seen other hybrid entities own the cows but i haven’t seen a situation where the individuals own the cows.
the iowa case is a true cow share because the individuals, not the LLC, not the association, not some other legal entity, actually own the cows.
in ohio, judge hein ruled that herdshares are valid and legal. let ‘s hope we get the same ruling in iowa.
lola, nobody is lining their pockets.
also remember that datcp has been changing its interpretation of wis. stat. 97.24 and atcp 60.235 for quite some time now. it’s hard to pin down that agency when they keep changing the rules.
As I understand it, "incidental" has a legal definition, and it means secondary to the primary business. Selling to a processor is my primary business, selling raw milk on the side is my secondary, or "incidental" business. This is already allowed under current WI statute, no farmshare needed. DATCP does not have the authority to interpret the meaning of "incidental", let alone to keep changing it’s interpretation. I asked FTCLDF about this before I set up my farmshare. FTCLDF said I couldn’t sell "incidental" milk but I could with a farmshare, which is now under fire in WI and other states.
I’m questioning the validity of the legal advice I got.
Also, the link is broken to the info regarding your Ohio victory. Please put it back up sp I can read more about this case.
Oh, and Bob…did Trautman call the press on Christmas eve? Why weren’t they there? If you hold a protest and no one notices, what good did it do?
I didn’t know where to go to look for a copy of the bill online, but since you linked it I’ve got it bookmarked. I’ve already e-mailed my senator and representative, but only heard back from the senator. I think I’ll be pestering my representative again and if she doesn’t support this, well, my vote come re-election time will probably be going elsewhere.
I’m unhappy, though not alltogether surprised, at the number of lobbyists against this legislation. A lobby for grocers? Is there a lobby for farmer’s markets? I doubt it. The whole idea of corporate lobbying leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just want to settle down quietly and live my life in a manner that I deem fit. I’m getting tired of government and corporations getting in the way of that.
When I participated in the settlement of Michigan’s raw milk case in 2007, that settlement clarified the status of herd/cow share arrangements in Michigan. This was a major achievement which grew out of that settlement. What worked extremely well in that situation was incessant communication, measured and polite but firm, with all levels of government asking for a sensible resolution of the case. I cannot tell you how important this was: from the agency heads, to representatives in the legislature, right on up to the governor’s office, and even including US Senators and representative (who rightly will say it’s a state matter, but it doesn’t hurt to mention the FDA rule when you speak to them). This kind of pressure, consistent over months, contributed significantly to resolution, and resulted, I am certain, to the formation of the raw milk working group in Michigan. There was progress as a result of the pressure, which has become communication. Citizen involvement is ultimately far more important than any given lawyer, in any given case, in any given court, with the occasional exception as in Michael Schmidt’s case and the result obtained by Gary Cox in Ohio.
You are right Datcp does not have the right(actually legislative authority) to interprite the incidental sales statute…however they have and everyone listens to it and has listened to it for sometime which gives it validity….however untrue or invalid it may be.
We are paying for the sins of our father and thier blind trust in letting personal responsiblity go to those who choose to use it against us.
We are attempting to reverse decades of this type of "Not my problem" and it is not cheap.
Several farms, 8 years ago spent over $200,000.00 of real money countless hours and wore out fax machines to give you the ability to excercise your right untill 3 months ago.
This is a process or personal responsiblity…not a 90 min law show which all things are settled and we put our heads on our pillow with a smile on our face.
This is life and must be fought for…not complain or let somebody else live it for you.
My fear is most will take your opinion and say again "its not my problem and you just want my money" which is only an extention of our fathers lack of interest in government… which if you enjoy this oppression have at it.
We…all of us producers consumers shareholder ect ect have to put up or shut up or get happy because this will not change on its own.
I and those at Clearview Acres lost the very thing that we had longed for our whole life and had every intention of passing on to our chldren for your ability to sell, distribute & simply feed people with milk.
I do not see any reason I will ever get that back nor have another opportunity to create what we had at Clearview Acres.
We did not have the public support as we may have now..and to pry open that check book for the health of our children is too much, then stay the hell out of the way and keep your opinions to yourself.
Tim Wightman
You are on the board of FTCLDF, right? Is it the policy of FTCLDF to tell a member, who is questioning the law and the methods used by the Fund’s attorneys, "and to pry open that check book for the health of our children is too much, then stay the hell out of the way and keep your opinions to yourself"? Gary, Steve, is this appropriate?
Several people thus far have stated that the Fund isn’t in it for the money, but your statement (statements made in anger are when the masks come off) reveals what I have started to suspect about the Fund – it’s all about that donation.
As far as my statement regarding the incidental sales, you are welcome to counter it with some reason based in law, but you have not done that. If I am correct, do you understand what I am saying? That your collective spent $200,000 asking for permission to do something THAT YOU ALREADY HAD THE RIGHT TO DO, and have since the original 1957 statute went into effect.
Counter that with facts if you want to, but leave out the name-calling. It doesn’t paint you or the FTCLDF in the best light.
"Is it the policy of FTCLDF to tell a member, who is questioning the law and the methods used by the Fund’s attorneys, "and to pry open that check book for the health of our children is too much, then stay the hell out of the way and keep your opinions to yourself"?"
That is not what Tim was responding to and you know it. You did far more than "…who is questioning the law and the methods used by the Fund’s attorneys,…"
I’ll go back to your original comment on this post and remind you of just what you said:
"And now we’re being told that they may not have enough money to represent all of us if the state comes after us, but are willing to take more of our money if we want representation. That sounds like extortion to me. Are they genuinely working in our best interest, or only interested in lining their own pockets?"
lola, Tim was far nicer than most would have been. Had you accused me (or an organization I was on the board of) of extortion and of lining my pockets on donations, I would have told you to shove your garbage up your butt.
You are a whiner and crier, waiting like a nanny-state welfare queen, for someone else to take care of you without doing anything to take care of yourself, all because you tossed a dollar or two their way.
Tim, Gary, Pete, Steve…write the shrew a check for every damn penny she ever sent the fund. Times are tough and my budget is tight, but I’ll make it up…just give her her money and tell her to begone.
Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
He questions Mark McAfee on his outsourcing practices, and regards himself a hero.
I question the FTCLDF and I receive a barrage of insults. Better not touch Bob’s "sacred cows" (pun intended). Thus the mask comes off.
I was told by a Fund attorney – on a conference call – that there wasn’t enough money to go around and that they were starting a new fund just for Wisconsin. Funny, Bob, I don’t remember you on that conference call.
No one here has yet answered my question regarding the incidental sales clause in WI statute. I don’t think it is inappropriate to question my lawyers’ procedures, especially if they conflict with other legal advice I’ve received.
Bob, can you answer my question regarding the incidental sales clause? No? Didn’t think so.
Because when Bob has nothing particularly important to contribute, he resorts to insults. Give the Fund all your money, Bob. And good luck to you.
lola…can you define extortion…without looking it up? No? Didn’t think so.
Just what HAVE you done…besides whine and cry?
http://www.mapquest.com/maps?city=Sarasota&state=FL&address=9117+Midnight+Pass+Rd&zipcode=34242-2990&country=US&latitude=27.21605&longitude=-82.51379&geocode=ADDRESS
A tad bit nicer than your shack, eh, Bob?
Being told by a lawyer that farmshares are a valid business model, only to find out that I didn’t need one because I could already sell raw milk legally under current statute, but they wouldn’t tell me that. And then when this "valid business model" comes under fire, being told they would need more money in order to represent me.
What would you call it, Bob?
So…let’s see if I follow your illogical logic here. Pete has a nice house because he has lined his pockets off FTCLDF funds…right?
Like I said lola…you are pitiful.
The Incidential sale clause that Lola brings up is interesting. The question is addressed at the DATCP site. The example Lola gives of incidential equalling "secondary" in a business practice-would likely not fly with the DATCP. Their focus is on "regular" business" practice. Does a regular business practice include selling to the same consumer more than once a month (for example)? Does a regular business practice include anything that can be associated with sales that are not "occassional" and clearly outside of regular business practices? Given the shifting definitions of statutory language-at least in interpretation by the DATCP -I’d not want to litigate over the definitions of "regular" busines practices, nor the definition of "incidential". The literal interpretation of a contract between two parties-such as a share agreement-would appear to provide more defensible protection.
Note also in the response the statement – "or if they involve advertising of any kind." What exactly is advertisingof any kind? Telling someone you’d offer raw milk for sale? There is no private/public distinction-at least in this FAQ response.
The FAQ from the DATCP site. . .
Can a dairy farmer legally sell raw milk?
No. The sale or distribution of raw or unpasteurized milk is illegal. The law exempts the incidental sale of raw milk directly to a consumer at the dairy farm where the milk is produced, for consumption by that consumer (or the consumers family or nonpaying guests). But those sales are also illegal if done as a regular business, or if they involve advertising of any kind.
The other side loves to see conflict. Lets keep it civil.
I am writing a check to FTCLDF today just because. I believe that the work done by Gary Cox is some of finest I have ever seen. I have stood in court with him many times and he is not only a great person…but he is hardworking, experienced and smart.
We need freedom fighters….this is not cheap and there is no way that the FTCLDF can take all on challenges. They must pick and choose the big important battles and the rest must wait. That is the way it is and I have always known that to be truth and reality. I was one of the first to join FTCLDF and even though not all of my cases could be handled by Gary I am grateful for the ones that he could handle and he handled them very well.
The battle is best fought by gathering the Raw Milk Moms and educating them. Thats the true fighting force. Then go change the stupid laws.
By the way….did you know that our dear Mr. John Francis Sheehan is a graduate of San Joaquin Valley College of Law in Fresno CA. He got his Juris Doctorate in 1995. That law school is but 15 minues from OPDC.
Perhaps this is why John Sheehan feels so compelled to dislike raw milk and OPDC. It strikes so close to his heart and his alma mater.
We must all remember why we are fighting for our raw milk. It is about freedom and it is about our health. Lets not let petty grievances obstruct those two essential goals.
Mark McAfee
The Fund was set up for the farmer…at a time when the pressure of the authorities was increasing, and frankly, there was little in the way of legal representation for the small raw milk farmer (those that are large and have cash don’t have that problem). Indeed the information and direction that those associated with the Fund have given have actually helped give a bit of security to those who push the limits of the law to provide raw milk.
There will never be enough money to defend raw milk farmers, as long as those with the power abuse it, under the guise of ‘food safety’, for the benefit of Big Dairy (indeed many of these authorities worked for Big Dairy before being granted their cushy government jobs (better bennies i bet).
I know Pete, and you would never find a man that was more altruistic in his attitude toward raw milk farmers. He has carried the lion share of raw milk legality years before the Fund was even set up…and your portrayal of him as someone taking advantage is well of course. You are obviously angry, and probably with good reason….but you should direct your anger at those who are indeed deserving of it…and the clowns over at DATCP are indeed worthy of it.
Fact is, farmshares is the most logical way to approach raw milk. It takes the act of supplying out of the public domain, and creates private contracts between farmers and customers. This partnership can, and should, effectively remove supplying raw milk from the auspices of the ‘public health’ crowd. And while my faith in the courts isn’t great, it is humungous compared to the faith in the legislative branch of governments (votes are easier to purchase). Those Big Dairy cronies will have a more difficult time justifying the illegality of a private contract.
If my name appears without any titles or headings than I am talking for myself and not for any organization I have been working with these many years.
Yes I stand by what I say and put my real name too it…I may not always be correct…I am seldom politically correct, but my life is now too short to mince words and time is running out before the final door is closed to our choices we thought we had all along.
Yes we had the right before I asked the State for help and if I had to do it all over again, and as I say now it is the last place you go for help of any kind.
Blame my school…blame my folks, grandparents, hippies, I don’t care… it still is the same situation…the State has over stepped its bounds and only knows certian efforts backed by money to put them back in their place.
Will we always need to do this…no..will it get done by volunteer part time efforts…no…will it happen if we beg consumers to be nice and by local…..no.
This "is" what we have to deal with..if many people pay a little…we then can do a lot.
If the numbers are present wether cash or bodies it will change the outcome.
Rely on someone else to do it for you…then we will only have what we have.
Tim Wightman
And as sure as the wooly white lambs bound throughout the field, our
inbox and comment sections overflowith with requests for donations for
the sake of the "Farmer".
Organizations (FTCLDF,NICFA, FARFA, R-CALF) tout their past efforts – though not notable for actual action per say – and plead once again for the future efforts they will
expend on your behalf.
And lo – 2011 Spring will arrive with yet again the same result – nada.
HogWash.
.
A Georgia state LAWMAKER has introduced a second raw milk bill with conditions attached just "like any LAWFUL milk product" in Georgia.
http://jacksonville.com/news/georgia/2010-02-10/story/lawmaker_introduces_bill_to_legalize_raw_milk_in_georgia
The bill will ALLOW Georgians to BUY and DRINK raw milk. DRINK??? YES the first line in the article did say DRINK!!!
" Selling to a processor is my primary business, selling raw milk on the side is my secondary, or "incidental" business"
The problem I see with allowing "incidental" sales is that milk intended for sale to a processor is under some very severe economic pressure.It costs money to feed a cow and it has to produce enough milk to pay for it’s feed plus other costs.To sell to a processor and actually make any money at all you will have to make all kinds of compromises about the cow’s health.To sell unpasteurized milk direct to your friends you do need to put the health of the cow first.You can’t possibly do both,Unless you divide your cows and manage them completely differently.
It’s not really about the meaning of words in a statute.Milk intended for processing has to be produced at an eighth of the cost as milk intended to be consumed without processing.Fresh unprocessed milk costs more because it costs so much more to produce.
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/tips-on-choosing-a-raw-milk-cooperative/
Following your point regarding the economics and additional husbandry practices to not have to make compromises regarding herd health and providing a quality product. Only looking at the statute and language-this additional care would likely be factored in to define a regular business practice. I think it is stepping into regulatory quicksand to rely on an incidental sales clause to sell any regulated product-especially a regulatory lightening rod like raw milk.
Regarding the FTLDF one thing this discussion is missing-is the preemptive actions of the Fund. We belong to FTLDF and my wife and I have donated considerable time in preparing documents, doing legal research, counseling producers and being actively involved in litigation. All pro bono-and with personal and financial sacrifice. I can speak to Michigan law- contracts are strictly interpreted-and that interpretation is based on the clarity of language and the mutual intent and understanding of those signing the contract. The contract rights are governed by law, and in controversial areas it is vital to understand that language. The resources of the state and federal government are huge.
My opinion is that it is important to anticipate any challenges to the legal basis of any contract and to be as consistent as possible with regulations and law. The Fund has done a remarkable job in educating all of us. My intent is to help people achieve their goals and to keep them out of court-and if we wind up in court to have an overwhelming superior position based on the best statutory and equitable argumentsdocumented and defensible. In many ways the absence of lawsuits-as in Michigan at this time- is, as Steve has pointed out, a positive development.
Last there is a very important issue regarding Gary Coxs comment on the interpretation of statutory language by the DATCP. For any citizen to be charged with a civil or criminal infraction-they mustmust—be on notice. Notice is central to the Constitutional right of due process. When a government modifies and shifts the definition of terms and the basis for legal enforcement, as it the case with what Im reading about the DATCP-the notice requirement is severely compromised and fundamental Constitutional guarantees violated.
I see a lot of problems in defending a client regarding the definition of incidental, and having had enough experience prosecuting cases in County Prosecuting Attorney Offices-to raise an issue with adequate notice and due process.
Now this farmer needs to plow snow and haul manureruminant manure that is. . . .
the legal defense fund has been involved in at least the following situations:
LLC dairy (ny)
amish farmer (pa)
amish farmer (pa)
buyer’s club (pa)
organic farmer (va)
milk farmer (mo)
assembly bill 1735 (ca)
goat farmer (ca)
milk farmer (ca)
livestock farmers (mi)
livestock farmer (pa)
buyer’s club (ga)
buyer’s club (oh)
milk farmers (wi)
milk farmers (wi)
milk consumers (ia)
drafting herdshare/cowshare documents all over the country (too numerous to count)
providing legal counsel all over the country (too numerous to count)
we also will be filing cases in federal and state court very soon.
we sometimes win, we sometimes lose, we sometimes are waiting on results from the courts. the bottom line, however, is we are trying.
as abraham lincoln said, "if we never try, we never succeed."
i’m glad the ftcldf exists. and i’m proud to be a part of this movement.
This is a sincere question not meant to be inflammatory. What are the costs to produce raw milk compared with selling it to a processor? Looking at the issue in a very basic way since I am not an ag economist, it would seem that starting a raw dairy involves a few initial investments: land, fencing, animals, and a bottling/storage area. If the animals are fed by the land on grass only and the producer owns the land, then isn’t labor the rest of the cost? There is no equipment for processing other than the basics for filling the bottles/jars and refrigeration; maybe limited transportation with local distribution. I may be answering my own question, but is the large mark-up for raw milk related to the amount of land and labor to support the animals?
One comment about the really public sniping going on with y’alls interal politics…FTCLDF serves a purpose IMHO, and I have liked it from the time of first discovering the organization. While not always agreeing with every one of their positions, there is no doubt in my mind that smart and caring people drive that organization and they are not "lining their pockets." FTCLDF is a worthy opponent when "we" are on opposite sides, and a great group of advocates when "we" are on the same side.
The big difference between high production conventional dairies that sell to processors and dairies that produce milk to be consumed directly is the number of cows a farm can support and the amount of milk that each cow can produce.To get a cow to produce lots of milk we want to feed that cow a high energy diet,but have it turn as much of that energy into milk as possible.This means a high starch diet and confining the cow so it doesn’t waste all of it’s energy moving around.Does this sound like a recipe for good health?To maximize a cow’s health it needs exercise.To keep it’s digestive system healthy it needs a higher ratio of fiber in it’s diet.The fiber requires more energy to digest.To reduce stress on the cow you need to give them more room.The result is you have fewer cows making less milk on the same farm with all of the same overhead costs.If no one thought the milk was better from these healthier cows,the market would eliminate those farms that chose this direction.The opposite is obviously happening.
It is up to the farmer to give the FTCLDF something to work with if he wants to be defended.I think that is why the judge in Michael Schmidt’s case found him not guilty.You can’t produce milk using the high starch little exercise system if you want to offer milk for consumption raw.You are being deceptive in your offer.And the motive has to be suspect,because the opportunity to reap large profits is there.
Those that try and play on both sides of the fence, should truly have their motivations closely examined.
The Co-Op sells OP 1/2 gal whole milk for $7.59, OP web site has the same for $5.00. Stores mark up to cover their costs.
Maybe one of the reasons for the "markup" is because the raw dairy farmers are required to have extra labs drawn on their milk products? Self preservation… Foods that are supposed to be "organic" (no pesticides/herbicides/drugs/etc) cost more than the processed poisons pushed on consumers…why is that?
How about breaking down each item of milk; pasteurized vs raw?
Is that pasteurized milk JUST milk from the cow that is JUST pasteurized? Or is it adulterated in some way? It appears that most people believe that that is what pasteurized milk is…..plain milk boiled and bottled, nothing done to it other than boiling/pasteurized. It is amazing that each sampling of pasteurized milk tastes exactly the same….how do they do that?