Next Case: Right to Choose Healthy Food vs Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund--New Opportunity for Choice?
Friday, July 23, 2010 at 09:16PM Last week, following my July 15 posting, Barney Google addressed a sharp complaint my way about the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund.
"You keep promoting a legal team that has yet to show a victory in the raw milk battle...They keep promoting these herdshare/cowshare/farmshare programs, but everyone that has come under fire is still under fire or tied up in court...We farmers are in worse shape now than we were before because of the legal advice the FTCLDF is giving. Look at the cease-and-desist orders, look at the warrants and confiscations. In Wisconsin, Ohio and New York it's all the same. Meadowsweet has been tied up in court for three years...If this is a valid business model, where are the victories?"
Before I provide my response, let me say that Barney Google isn't alone. Complaints about FTCLDF seem to crop up every so often from various people.
One of latest objectors is Aajonus Vonderplanitz, the raw food advocate who runs a nonprofit organization, Right to Choose Healthy Food. One of the organization's food distribution sites, Rawesome Foods in Venice, CA, was the site of a multi-agency raid three weeks ago.
Vonderplanitz and his RTCHF push a different "business model" than FTCLDF--a lease-based model. Quite simply, RTCHF leases the land and/or animals of about 40 farms around the country, which provide products, including raw dairy, to many hundreds of RTCHF members.
As I understand it, the lease-based model differs in a number of ways from the herdshare/cowshare model. A lease is akin to rental, while a herdshare/cowshare is akin to ownership, which would seem to be an advantage for the herdshare/cowshare. But leases have a lot more solid legal standing in business than herdshares/cowshares.
Land and buildings, not to mention cars, trucks, and machinery, are commonly leased every day around the country, and have a long history in agriculture, going back to sharecropping, which became common in the days following the U.S. Civil War. Herdshares and cowshares? The main court test in this country has been in Ohio, where a state court upheld the concept in 2006, and the state decided not to appeal the case. I explore the distinctions in my latest article on Grist.
For these reasons, Vonderplanitz is frustrated that the FTCLDF has shied away from the lease concept, especially given that he's now taking considerable official heat. "I've shown Sally Fallon and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund people the lease agreements," he says. They've declined to embrace the idea and the result, in his view, has been something akin to what Barney Google described.
The lawyers at FTCLDF said they didn't want to comment publicly about the Vonderplanitz assessment, in the interests of not sowing divisions in the food rights movement. But they have made clear previously that they think the ownership privileges conferred by herdshares and cowshares are preferable to the more limited privileges of leases.
Since I'm not a lawyer, I can't say which approach is best. I do find the long history and strong standing of leases in our legal system to be reassuring. RTCHF has been using the lease model for eight years and, as far as I know, its farmers haven't been legally challenged by authorities. Yes, there have been raids. Aajonus' Rawesome foods endured one in 2005 in Venice, and no charges resulted from it.
As one farmer has pointed out to me, Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger, who has embraced the lease model, is producing raw dairy products for consumption, while the Zinnickers are dumping their milk and trying to get Wisconsin courts to sign on to the couple's hershare model, with backing from FTCLDF.
If it's results you want, then you have to say RTCHF is getting the better results...up to now.
Now, no one can say what might result out of the recent raids of Rawesome Foods and Sharon Palmer's farm (she has a RTCHF lease). There could be indictments and long court battles, forcing them to fight the feds for years.
Then again, the feds may well confine themselves to harassment, perhaps working with local officials seeking the less risky tack of trying to force RTCHF outlets to obtain health and retail licenses. But even here, a loss could encourage private groups to widely expand their distribution of nutrient-dense foods--something Big Ag would definitely not approve of. And a direct government challenge to the leasing model--for example, challenging RTCHF on the basis of the ban on interstate commerce in raw milk--could be more risky than the feds will tolerate, since they could well lose. Then, the raw milk spigots everywhere would be opened wide.
Now, some individuals in the food rights movement don't like me doing such public analysis and assessment. But I've come to realize that one of the big advantages we have over the government overlords is our transparency. They work in secret, trying to figure out ways to stymie the public will. We are upfront about what we want, and gain ever more supporters.
Moreover, they are cowardly. All you have to do is view the video from Rawesome Foods of the agents entering the premises in Venice three weeks ago, with guns drawn, to get an idea of how pathetic they are. Guns drawn coming into a food outlet? Maybe they worry about getting too many fumes from healthy food. No, they are so distant from their subjects that they are afraid of ordinary unarmed citizens.
I see the division between RTCHF and FTCLDF as healthy. Just as we are entitled to choices in our food, we should also have choices about which legal course to choose and support. I support both RTCHF and FTCLDF, and whomever else comes forward to lend a hand to farmers and consumers in this ever expanding struggle. It's going to be a long and tough battle, and the enemy has become increasingly aggressive.
When I hear the stories, and see the videos like that of the agents at Rawesome Foods, I find myself thinking about Winston Churchill's eloquent and, ultimately electifying, rallying cries to his countrymen during 1940, following the worst defeats against the Nazis. Do yourself a favor, listen to this recording. If you don't have time for the whole ten minutes, listen to the last 70 seconds, beginning at the 8-minute-50-second point, where he concludes, "We will fight in France..." Our situation isn't nearly so desperate...yet.
Reader Comments (38)
http://www.juicymaters.com/nationalpolitics/2010/07/23/two-parties-four-philosophies-a-tiger-by-the-tail/
Bob Hayles
There are a myriad of ways to get raw milk to the people. Having different people with different resources take different tacts is healthy....and increases the chances of us being successful collectively. As long as we understand the difference approaches, and keep criticism to a civil minimum, it furthers our cause. AV might have the best angle on this, but if he doesn't, than it is good that SF and the LDF have taken a different one.
Desperation is a state of mind...and we won't be there unless we choose to fall into the fear that many in this country use for control. Doing the right thing, no matter what the consequences, is good enough for some.
There is a bright side to this, however, and milk farmer got to it. In a classic, diversified, decentralized, human-centered way, different people with different resources are taking different approaches to getting the food they want. That is extremely healthy, and not incidentally, extremely difficult for system-types, with their big-army approach, to fight against. They squeeze the balloon, and it bulges somewhere else. Correction, as always, is a bottom-up process.
THE AMERICAN DREAM or NIGHTMARE if you provide real food to those that REJECT slow poison from the regulators table!
Video of "peace officers" [now called law enforcement] with WEAPONS drawn to ensure that the SAD is our menu! Any outrage anywhere?
At the point of a gun we are educated medicated and forced fed. Was the American Dream just a mere fairy tale?
There's an easy explanation for this. It's called Controlled Opposition. (See my comment about 3 articles back for a more in-depth explanation.)
at the outset of the Home on the Range herdshare, 3 years ago, we dismissed the idea of selling raw milk for pet food, even though we knew it was legal to do that in BC.
When I get a farm completely separate from the herdhsare, I'll be selling raw milk as 'human grade pet food' = there's more than one avenue for keeping the REAL MILK flowing
the health bureaucrats have made lots of stupid noises in the media, and slapped some officious-looking paper on us, but their ultimate authority is equivalent to a traffic ticket. The amusing thing about Canada - compared to the united States of Ham-merica - is, up here, the petty tyrants aren't even good at doing bad
lola...I've got an extra tinfoil hat you can borrow. You need to either do that or pick up some foil at the grocery and make one for yourself.
Bob Hayles
http://tinyurl.com/2ftuvng
" "This is about control and profit, not our health," said Aajonus Vonderplanitz, co-founder of Rawesome Foods. "How can we not have the freedom to choose what we eat?"
Scientists and regulators point to epidemiological evidence linking disease outbreaks to raw milk: The milk can transmit bacteria such as E. coli O157:H7, salmonella, campylobacter and listeria, which can result in diarrhea, kidney failure or death.""
And what of the "other" foods that transmit more often than raw milk?
>"This is not about restricting the public's rights," said Nicole Neeser, program manager for dairy, meat and poultry inspection at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. "This is about making sure people are safe.""
I beg to differ, by raiding my cowshare you are very much so restricting MY right to consume what I choose. If it were truely about "making sure people are safe" then the processed/chemically adulterated foods would not exist, there are numerous studies proving how they make people ill.
""Demand for all manner of raw foods — including honey, nuts and meat — has been growing, spurred by heightened interest in the way food is produced.""
Bet this is a major key...a group that is growing and it is strong.
"" But raw milk in particular has drawn a lot of regulatory scrutiny, largely because the politically powerful dairy industry has pressed the government to act""
Hmmm the dairy industry is pressing the govt.....he who has the gold makes the rules.
Will they come on my farm and take my cows if I consume the milk and/or meat? Will they say I can't eat my produce unless I use their poisons on them? Will monsonto say I stole their seeds when the wind or bugs bring poisoned pollen onto my property and contaminate my farm?
So it's not okay when Marler lobs insults at you but it's okay when you lob insults at me? What a hypocrite. How you have any credibility is beyond me.
Just for the record...there are some highly intelligent people out there who know exactly what I'm talking about. If you'd like to refute my statement, or my previous comment, go ahead. The fact that you chose to insult me instead shows how ignorant you are of how the world really works.
Those in the "natural foods crowd" do more research on their household cleaner than on the law and their lawyer. What a joke.
Agenda 21; Codex Alimentarius; MK Ultra; Monarch Programming; Hollie Grieg and the Scottish Pedophile Ring; Bilderberg; CFR; Trilateral Commissioin; Chemtrails; Fluoride; Tesla Free Energy; Maritime Law/The Strawman/U.S. Corporation;; Who Shot: JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon, Ronald Reagan; False Flag Terror: Gulf of Tonkin, 9/11, Oaklahoma City, Ruby Ridge, 7/7 Bombings, Pearl Harbor; Area 51; Problem-Reaction-Solution; Controlled Opposition; Operation Paperclip; Operation Northwoods; Federal Reserve; Fiat Notes are Debt Notes; How Money is Created; Rothschild Zionism; NEW WORLD ORDER
Good luck and God bless.
OT maybe not. Massive tax change inserted into health bill. I don't begin to understand it. But it appears from what is reported if a business spends over $600 on any goods or services transacted in taxable year a 1099 must be filed. Another very grievous burden placed upon the small dairy farmer??? In 2012 buy a TV a computer or replace a condenser fan in your A/C or repair you car but first provide you SSN???
Anyone knowledge care to comment?
"33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True"
http://utahwearechange.org/2010/06/33-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true-what-every-person-should-know/
I think you are correct about the importance of "control" to the bureaucrats, but I'll take issue on this thought: "Does anyone really believe that our regulatory apparatus is attacking us because of an uncrossed “t” or an undotted “i” in our private arrangements?" For better or worse, we are a nation of laws, not men (or women). Remember, this nation was founded by a bunch of lawyers. (May help explain why today's llawyers stick together so well, and tend to be arrogant about the opinions of non-lawyers, but that's another debate.) It was that underlying principle that forced Richard Nixon to become the first president to resign (rather than be impeached). Granted, big business has been much more adept (and well funded) at changing the laws and regulations to suit its needs, such as using the "commerce" clause to give the federal government ever more control. But the U.S. constitution and the laws around it are still not a finished product, and are open to new interpretations (or reenforcement of old interpretations). I like to think that that's where Aajonus Vonderplanitz is headed in his use of the legally well-established leasing concept.
That's definitely what Gordon Watson is getting at when he says in his comment, "When I get a farm completely separate from the herdhsare, I'll be selling raw milk as 'human grade pet food' = there's more than one avenue for keeping the REAL MILK flowing." Yes, there's more than one way to skin the regulatory cat we're dealing with here, and much will depend on our innovativeness in using the law against those who would control us.
David
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/07/articles/case-news/outbreaks-illnesses-and-recalls-linked-to-raw-unpasteurized-dairy-products-united-states-2010-through-july-23-2010/
Is grass fed beef really safer?
http://www.marlerblog.com/2010/07/articles/lawyer-oped/has-the-nail-been-driven-into-the-coffin-of-the-conventional-wisdom-that-grassfed-beef-is-safer-than-grainfed-beef/
cp
We shouldn't put too much faith in, nor expect justice from the courts. The more legal theories, approaches and suits we can bring on the matter the better. But in the end the courts are not God nor our King and we must be prepared to fight for our right to healthy food regardless of how they rule in any given case.
If we do not have the resolution to keep making raw milk available even when all legal options and theories have been exhausted then we can not expect to win this battle.
The same goes for political options as well.
http://www.sicklycat.com/2010/07/18/baby-i-like-it-raw-video/
Can anyone separate out fact from fiction, especially when he continues to talk about raw milk’s capacity to kill pathogens (46 minute into the video)? Why does he continue to tell these lies about raw milk especially in light of all the raw milk outbreaks this year?
At around 43 minutes he makes fun of the warning labels and encourages people with compromised immune systems to drink raw milk. This is a completely irresponsible message.
Yes there are two types of raw milk—one for pasteurization and one for human consumption. The one for human consumption is getting people ill. Notice how he failed to mention that little fact in his interview.
And this is one of the respected leaders in the raw milk movement? Very sad!
cp
I'll admit it hasn't been a great year in terms of illnesses from raw milk. Just keep in mind we are talking about part of one year here. In 33 years between 1973 and 2005, the average number of reported illnesses was 54. The Marler compilation shows 97, and the reports are based on preliminary conclusions, which nearly always finger raw milk. Let's see what the final reports show. In the meantime, there is at least one case on that list showing an illness from "bathtub" cheese, which informed raw milk drinkers disavow. Plus, there is at least one recall (no illnesses, as usual) listed from NY Ag & Markets, whose motto is, "How many raw dairies did we harass this week?"
As for the study on grass-fed beef, not sure many serious foodies worry about safety differences, but rather about nutritional differences between grass-fed and grain-fed beef.
David
I’m not an expert on the history of mandated reporting and foodborne pathogens, but I don’t think mandated reporting for all states for E.coli 0157:H7 and HUS began until the mid 1990’s. The data for reporting is dependent on doctor’s culturing the test for a pathogen. There are many people who become ill from a foodborne pathogen, but it is not severe enough to warrant testing for it; only the severe cases end up with cultures being run.
For example, I work with someone who became quite ill. She kept going back to the doctor saying something is wrong. After a month, he finally ran a culture. She had E.coli 0157:H7 which didn’t turn into HUS, but she then ended up suffering from gallbladder issues for a year.
Another example is another person I work with. She was severely ill for a week. She finally went to the doctor; the doctor asked her a list of question about what she at, pork was on the list so she tested her for parasites. She never tested her for a foodborne pathogen. She came back negative for parasites, so she never knew what pathogen made her sick. She was given antibiotics and responded favorably. This is an example of someone that fell through the cracks. She went to the doctor but was never tested for a pathogen. The whole data collection system for foodborne pathogens is hardly perfect.
The data you refer to ended in 2005. The Dee Creek Outbreak was in December of 2005 and marked the beginning of many raw milk outbreaks from 2006 and on. It would be interesting to count the number of illnesses from 2005 to the present linked to raw milk. I think everyone would be quite surprised by this number.
cp
A nation of laws, sure. But not a nation of regulations. Laws codify (granted imperfectly) constant principles, and are therefore compatible with natural rights. Regulations impose process control, and are therefore often (always?) in violation of natural rights. Nixon, remember, was not forced into impeachment because he deviated from processes invented by agency bureaucrats.
Notably, regulations apply control without legislative authorization. Legislators give tacit approval to bureaucrats to do their work for them---a dramatic flight from responsibility and a shameful way to treat our Constitution. If our legislators are not directly responsible for every word of “law” they create, then how on earth are we the people to challenge them? That gets, in my opinion, to the FTCLDF's problem. Full disclosure: I support the FTCLDF financially and philosophically. Nevertheless I feel they are in a terribly tight bind, having to utilize legal means to battle extra-legal forces. It is a loser's game, at least until the battle reaches the constitutional level. There, justice may be argued sanely, unless of course we decide that the Constitution is a fluid document, open to interpretation by “progressive” ideas.