It’s difficult not to notice that the pace of state and federal actions against raw milk producers and distributors is intensifying, not only in quantity, but in terms of the charges being sought.
The feds began the current spree with the suit against Amish farmer Dan Allgyer last April, seeking a permanent injunction from him shipping milk outside Pennsylvania. The Rawesome Three, busted last August on felony charges, includes James Stewart, one of the longest standing distributors of raw milk in the country, going back to 2001. Earlier this month, we saw the Wisconsin authorities sabre rattle to resurrect their bully game with dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger. Now we learn that a federal grand jury, at the behest of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is investigating veteran Amish dairy farmer David Hochstetler of Indiana and farmer/food club overseer Richard Hebron of Michigan, once again with the threat of felony criminal charges.
Aajonus VonderplanitzIf there’s one theme common in all these actions it is that they have a connection to food rights and raw food advocate Aajonus Vonderplanitz. Allgyer was part of Vonderplanitz’s Right to Choose Healthy Food at the time the feds moved against him last April. (He has since split off from that organization.) Voncerplanitz was a co-founder of Rawesome Food Club, even if he did have a falling out with James Stewart a year or so before the felony charges were made against the Rawesome Three. Both Vernon Hershberger and David Hochstetler are part of the Right to Choose Healthy Food network.
The near taunting of Vonderplanitz by the assistant U.S. attorney, Ross Goldstein, in his note to Vonderplanitz (quoted in my previous post)speaks to the disdain with which the authorities view him personally and, more significant, his Right to Choose Health Food network of private clubs.
While the authorities mostly avoided dealing with the food clubs for a number of years. now that’s changing. Thanks to state court decisions in New York and Wisconsin, giving regulators nearly absolute authority over even private food clubs distributing raw dairy, reticence about confronting private clubs appears to be dissipating. The authorities seem intent on wreaking havoc on Vonderplanitz’s Right to Choose Healthy Food network of buying clubs around the country, to set an example for operators of those clubs, as well as others.
Like food clubs everywhere, his network has experienced significant growth over the last five years, involving some thousands of individuals in dozens of clubs around the country. In its request for information from farmers Hochstetler and Hebron, the Michigan grand jury included this: “Any and all documents relating to, or reflecting communications with, Right to Choose Health Foods or Aajonus Vonderplanitz…”
I believe this battle, over the rights of individuals to acquire food privately, will be the big battle arena upcoming. While some who comment on this blog seem to feel that’s a lost cause, that we somehow gave up the right to organize privately simply by becoming citizens, or whatever, the fact of the matter is that the U.S. has a long history of permissiveness toward private organizations, so long as they are truly private, and operating outside the public realm. And that will likely be the challenge for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, Right to Choose Healthy Food, and others–to define the opportunities and limitations for private food clubs and herdshares.
***
Certainly one thing that seems clear in the growing intensity of official activity over raw milk is that the federal and state authorities remain focused on farmers and distributors…even as raw milk consumers turn up the heat of protest against the interstate ban.
On December 8, the Raw Milk Freedom Riders will be openly violating the federal prohibition on raw milk shipments across state lines, with five mothers transporting milk from Wisconsin to Illinois, to pass out to friends and neighbors at a rally in Chicago.
Activist Max Kane left a phone message with John Sheehan, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s dairy chief, about the upcoming raid, which you can watch here.
And there are rumblings that the feds may have more to worry about than angry moms…in the form of gun-toting sheriffs ever more protective of their local turf against invading federal regulators.
A number of raw dairy farmers are getting to know their local sheriffs, who themselves are organizing to get the word out that states and localities need to assert their rights…via a group known as the County Sheriff Project. Some communities are organizing to raise the $1,000 necessary to send their own local sheriff to a national convention of sheriffs Jan. 30 in Las Vegas. (See also if your sheriff is on the board of directors, listed at the bottom of the organization’s page I have linked to.)
The organization is committed to “state sovereignty and each county acting in accordance with the principles established in the 10th Amendment. It’s you working with your county sheriff and locally elected officials to stand up for the Bill of Rights and to stand against the out of control federal government and it agencies.” (The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reserves to states the powers not granted to the federal government, or prohibited to the states.)
***
It’s not too often you read about a judge imposing sentence on a convicted defendant expressing both respect for the defendant and regret about imposing the sentence. That was the situation in Toronto Friday when a judge imposed a fine of $9,150 and one year of probation on Ontario raw dairy farmer Michael Schmidt.
According to a news report, Judge Peter Tetley said, “”(Mr. Schmidt) is a man of principle…He’s willing to fight for his principles. There’s a lot to admire about Mr. Schmidt….The present legislation is inconsistent at best.”
While the judge ordered Schmidt to pay the fine within a year, and not speak about his case, at risk of imprisonment, it’s difficult to imagine him abiding by such directives, as much as he’s said he’s willing to go to prison rather than pay the fine. Besides, the case is being appealed.
At the same time, no farmer selling his produce should withhold information or misstate it in regard to his/her farming operation. That way, a consumer can make an informed decision that he/she alone must take responsibility for.
Buying milk from a farmer is very different from buying it at a retail venue, and while I do appreciate that not everyone can milk a cow or goat, they should take the time to visit the farm before they purchase such a sensitive product. This is mere prudence.
I am glad that sheriffs in this country are meeting to discuss how to protect their localities from the high-handed intrusion of the federal government. I will make sure my local sheriff hears of this.
Thank you once again, Mr. Gumpert.
Understandably the judge is being non committal (Pontius Pilate). He should have refused to pass sentence IMO and in doing so is merely placating TPTB.
Kirsten
Rather then just visit the farm they need to take an active part in farm life for several months/years, a form of conscription if you will in order to give them a dose of reality and break down their fantasies. They need to shovel and fork cow shit, stick both their arms up a cows twat in order to rectify a breach, stick their arm into a cows rectum in order to manipulate the breeding pippet through the cervix (its not uncommon for the shoulder length disposable plastic glove to spring a leak), initiate a new heifer into the milking herd, dehorn calves, trim hooves, clean the shit off their face after a cow with winter dysentery swings its tail, etc.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/schools-adapting-banning-foods-for-students-with-allergies-1.1237528#axzz1euJMgfE7
The above article states that scientists are unsure of what is causing an increase in food allergies. Or perhaps they are merely reluctant to admit that their manipulative approach to various life forces is what has nurtured the immune state we now find ourselves in today?
In the meantime the school has substituted peanut butter with sun butter. So, what is it going to do when students start showing up with sunflower seed allergies, an allergy that is also growing?
Biologically, we are unfortunately doing a good job of isolating ourselves from what is natural and creating our own little islands. Diversity rather then isolation is whats needed in order to stimulate a healthy society.
Ken Conrad
The results so far are as follows,
Yes. 10.73% (294 votes)
No, it's too harsh. 79.74% (2,184 votes)
No, it isn't harsh enough. 6.5% (178 votes)
I'm not sure. 3.03% (83 votes)
Total Votes: 2,739
http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourcommunity/2011/11/is-a-9000-fine-for-selling-raw-milk-appropriate.html
Ken Conrad
I believe many on this blog alone, said consumers should visit farms, for a dose of reality among other things.
And many have stated that consumers should take responsibility for their choices.
Only the greedy? Some enjoy giving to others. And yes, they should be compensated for their work. Many on this blog have stated their dissatisfaction with the govts oppression. If you don't wish to sell your products to others, that is your choice, others choose to sell to consumers.
I don't live a "corporate-sponsored lifestyle". I am currently in city limits and the laws forbid a cow or goat or sheep in my tiny yard. Many don't have the money to move and to purchase farm animals and all that goes with them. Many are on fixed incomes. Also, what about those who are not physically able to care for animals let a lone milk a cow?
Throw money around? I am not able to do that, nor are the majority of the people I know.
Ken, " Understandably the judge is being non committal (Pontius Pilate). He should have refused to pass sentence IMO and in doing so is merely placating TPTB."
You are very right.
I've shoveled poop, human and animal. Stuck my hands in many orifices, can name C=diff correctly 99% of the time just by the smell. I have no knowledge of breeding practices (I have wondered about some humans that breed…)
Regarding the increasing allergies, I think it is the deteriorating immune response that is responsible. Will the "scientists" research to find out the causes? poor quality foods and environment, chemically polluted foods and environments, toxins injected and taken orally all suppress the immune system.
good to see someone here advocating the old American value of 'self reliance' , and who has taking practical steps to dis-engage from the commercial system … maybe get the webmaster for the Complete Patient to post a photo of the alcohol still you set up in yo' backyard, with which you make your own fuel for that horseless carriage, which you hammered out of iron ore you mined yourself.
just don't feed the spent cornmash from your still to the cow, which of course – you keep on the balcony of your apartment …
Robyn OBriens book http://www.amazon.com/Unhealthy-Truth-Shocking-Investigation-Americas/dp/0767930746/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1322450588&sr=1-1#_
Stephanie Caves book http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=vaccination+what+you+doctor+didn%27t+tell+you
Robyn OBriens website http://www.robynobrien.com/
Stephanie Caves website http://cypressintegrativemedicine.com/content.asp?secnum=22
I haven't read those books. I think the increase in allergies, and other illnesses is from many insults to the body. Increase in vaccinations may be one (the ingredients are toxic), poor quality food, toxic foods and environments. You can't find water without chemicals added. Does the plastic bottled water leach chemicals into the water? It is really pitiful. One would think that with the worlds knowledge there would be a great push for clean, healthy foods, water and environments. I guess that depends on the persons definition of healthy.
No raw milk is not a miracle, yet it can be a very healthy drink. And studies do show that those who consume raw dairy have a lower incidence of asthma.
-Blair
Sylvia,
You have said repeatedly that you do not believe in epidemiology. Yet, the studies you refer to were based on epidemiology and not proof or causation. Indeed, those asthma studies include the words "might," "possibly," and other caveats. It remains unclear if the asthma reduction is associated with raw milk, or other factors related to growing up on a farm. It would be a huge stretch to conclude that those studies offer a viable approach to reduce asthma among urban/suburban people who didn't grow up on a farm, drink raw milk, or experience other farm exposures.
The epidemiological evidence that raw milk causes foodborne illnesses is much stronger and has been repeated over and over, unlike the few asthma studies.
If you take away your bias, and hold them to the same standard, what do you conclude?
MW
Wanted to reiterate David's and Michael's point that it is time for consumers to take the lead.
Although I love reading reader comments and links, it's becoming obvious that there is David Gumpert, with his insightful and compelling blog, and and then there is us with all our yada yada ya monday morning QBing
Be the change in your state/province. Signing petitions,answering polls and thinking legislators are watching the response; waiting for legislators to do something has been useless.
Raw Milk Freedom Riders are activists. Michael is an activist. David and Mark are activists. We need many more everywhere.
-Blair
Please study this:
http://www.organicpastures.com/pdfs/raw_milk_allergy.pdf
PARSIFAL Peer reviewed and internationally published.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21875744
GABRIELA Peer reviewed and internationally published.
Two studies with about 23,000 kids with a clear link to reduced asthma, excema, and allergies. Why do we need studies anyway…just drink your raw milk and see how your allergies and asthma do. You be the scientist. The GABRIELA study explained the physiology behind how it all works. It is thought to be the Raw WHEY protein that stabilizes the MAST cell that reduces allergies and asthma.
Mark
There is nothing except epidemiology to support the PARSIFAL and GABRIELA studies. They have no laboratory or clinical evidence to support their findings.
I believe epidemiology is a critically important component in discovering connections between exposures and outcomes. It remains unclear if the raw milk exposure is directly related to reduced asthma, or if there is some other aspect to rural farm life that iinfluences the protective effect. The authors say clealy that more research is needed, and it is too dangerous to recommend consumption of raw milk, with citations based on epidemiological, laboratory, and clinical evidence.
MW
I agree with you, raw milk is not the miracle answer for all that ails us, yet I believe that raw milk is therapeutic and plays a key role in developing a strong immune system. Based on my experience consuming and providing raw milk to a variety of consumers urban and rural, young and old, over the last 50 years it certainly does not deserve, the negative label it has acquired.
Ken Conrad
Even a blind pig finds a truffle once and a while.
I do agree with you however, you cannot rely on the PARSIFAL and GABRIELA studies if they are based solely on epidemiology.
Epidemiology has, more often then not mislead the media, politicians and the public. It is an unreliable process that has failed to be consistently accurate and is therefore lacking in credibility.
Many individuals from both sides of the camp have used epidemiology as a tool to further their cause.
We must have crossed paths early this morning
Ken Conrad
No, I said our govts epidemiology is skewed and nonfactual most of the time, they appear mostly to lean toward big corps favor. Just look at the "epidemiological studies" toward raw dairy. The ones in the US show different results than those from other countries.
MW most of what you say is severely biased and you repeat the same thing over and over without any real unbiased data to review, so I ignore most of your words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk
It appears the consumption of raw dairy far outweighs the consumption of pasteurized dairy in the world. If raw milk was so bad, there would be so many millions of deaths from it all over the world and people would have stopped consuming it 100s of years ago.
Pasteurization allows milk that is contaminated and sub-standard to be sold.
Raw Milk Myths
I don't believe a thing written at this site. Controlled by TPTB.
All foods have the potential for for contamination and only a fool would believe otherwise.
Pasteurization does destroy the nutrients in milk.
Homogenization is an unnecessary process, it hides the fact that processed milk has no or extremely small amount of cream left in it. Whole milk is supposed to have cream in it, otherwise it is not whole milk. This adulterates the milk.
Raw milk kills pathogens–perhaps inhibits bacteria growth, nothing is 100%, neither is pasteurized milk always safe.
It is safe to leave raw milk at room temperature.–How else do you clabber it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clabber_%28food%29 cant do this with pasteurized milk, that is nothing more than putrid spoilage.
Raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk for babies.–That is an opinion, just as those who think processed foods are healthy.
Millions of people purchase raw milk every year in the United States.— http://www.ftcldf.org/open-letter-to-fdas-dairy-head-john-sheehan-bemis.htm
"Based on the CDC's own survey, the average number of people drinking raw milk in this 2006-2007 sampling was 3.0% of the population, ranging from 2.3% in Minnesota to 3.8% in Georgia.
The population in the United States in late 2007 was about 302,000,000 people. Thus, if someone drank raw milk 3 years ago, he or she was among NINE MILLION RAW MILK DRINKERS."
Deaths attributed to drinking raw milk were from "bathtub cheese" and factory farms, not legal or "certified" raw milk.—–Where is the proof this is not true?
European researchers recommend raw milk for treatment of child allergies.–I don't know about european, I do know some American MDs recommend raw dairy
Pathogens only come from factory farms ("confined feeding animal operations" or CAFOs).–Remove the word "only". Probably the greater amount of pathogens come from cafos
It is the RAW WHEY Protein that is the secret sauce in RAWMILK. GABRIELA said this and many others say this as well.
When science does not conveniently support your agenda or the conclusions desired…then just deny the science.
Another way to look at warped science is to not look at science and simply trust your gut.
When pasteurized milk triggers Asthma and Raw Milk makes it bettter….a mother knows this pretty damn quick.
Does not take a scientist to figuer this out.
Mark
Abraham Lincoln: Address to the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1859
this is what dairy-ing does so well – turn grass into valuable milk / meat and hides ; especially, to improve the soil – which is why the yeomanry are the target of the communists who infest the FDA and every other UNconstitutional alphabet-soup bureaucracy
From a commenter:"Natural Strawberry Flavor" can be created using something from a gland in a beaver's rear end. Time to start growing your own food, folks. "
This shows that informing consumers of what they are eating will have an affect on what they consume, especially if these facts are repeated and expanded upon.
I've been making my own vanilla extract for years. I cannot imagine the govt reasoning that allows us to be fed this crap and they fear raw dairy? Must be money, what else could it be?
The following link is to a letter that Representative Chellie Pingree of the 1st Congressional District of Maine recently sent to Commissioner Hamburg of the FDA. It's a beauty.
http://localfoodlocalrules.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pingree_letter_fda.pdf
After you've stopped clapping and cheering, please take a quick minute to email, snail mail or call Rep. Pingree and say THANK YOU for this most important step toward removing the appointed bureaucrat [read UN-ELECTED] who leads the US Government Crusade to end our rights to choose the nutrient-dense foods and medicines we want and need.
It makes no difference whether you belong to a red, blue, green or yellow political party or no party at all. Rep Pingree has stepped up to the plate and hit a home run for every citizen in this country and all of North America!
Now is the time for ALL of our elected representatives to join her in this effort.
Thank you!
MW
Think I saw somewhere that Walmart is having a special this weekend.
David
Ha, walmart sells a lot of nasty things…..approved by tptb. There is meaning to "buyer beware".
If you can't see that the recent Food Safety News article is a joke, then the joke is on you.
It was posted to the linked in food safety group I somehow was invited to join, and even the people there (who are no general friends of real milk), think it is a biased piece of toilet paper.
As David commented on that site, articles like this are why people don't trust Marler, the government agencies, etc. and for good reason.
A joke? Looks like propaganda to me, especially when it starts spouting the information came from "scientists and consumer advocates ". If that is a joke, then it is in poor taste and helps neither side of the issues.
I queried the author of the above article Dr, Mae-Wan Ho about her reference to the newly discovered fluid and dynamic nature of genetics and its implication with respect to genetic blueprinting of bacteria.
Her reply is not entirely surprising when one considers the information Migel shared with us in previous posts, she states, Good question Ken Conrad. Geneticists have indeed found the same rapid 'evolution' due to horizontal gene transfer and recombination, if not directed mutations, for example in the recent E. coli outbreak in Germany. They are so rapid and profuse that some of us suspect artificial genetic engineering may have something to do with it.
Ken Conrad
PS
It would be interesting to see the direction in which this statement by Albert Einstein would lead us, no problem can be solved with the same consciousness that created it.
I quarrel with Michele in her whitewash of "Myth 7." Implied in the number drinking raw milk is a comparison of the relative rates of illness between raw and pasteurized milk, data which is available but which no-one seems to want to talk about. The number of people drinking raw milk compared to illnesses has been fuzzy for far too long. I'm not an epidemiologist, but I'd like to suggest some new angles in this debate.
The 2007 CDC data which reports 3% of the population drinking raw milk cannot possibly mean, as Michele suggests, that only 1/3 of this group is "really" drinking raw milk because that argument relies on the "explanation" that the remaining 2/3 are farmers drinking it from the bulk tank. This means 6,000,000 people were farmers, families and likely employees, who were drinking raw milk from the bulk tank.
First, if true, this would mean that 6,000,000 people were drinking the most dangerous kind of raw milk, namely milk that was produced with the expectation and reliance that it would be cleaned up by pasteurization. Of course, these folks may have super-strong guts from being habituated to their farm's menu of pathogens and thus are immune to them. This alone is food for thought.
On the other hand, USDA reported that in 2006 there only 75,000 dairy farms in the U.S. Since 2006 was one of the years covered by CDC's 2007 report, we'll take the 75,000 farms and divide it into 6,000,000 people purportedly drinking raw milk only from bulk tanks. This means on average, that each dairy farm was feeding pre-pasteurized bulk tank raw milk to 80 people. Pretty big families, I would say. But does it really matter? Three percent is three percent, no matter where they are getting their milk, and the illness data don't suggest that those 6,000,000 people are dropping like flies.
I would suggest that the CDC study really means that something like 3% of the population WAS drinking raw milk in 2007, meaning 9,000,000 people, meaning it's very likely more than 9,000,000 people today. I started in 2005, so I'm one of the 9,000,000, but I know lots of people who have started in the last 4-5 years, and I would argue they are part of a much larger number.
I will admit that illness data suggest that raw milk may well be responsible for more illnesses than pasteurized milk, on a population-adjusted basis (although, pasteurized milk has been responsible for more deaths). Both numbers, however, are tiny. I estimate a population-adjusted illness rate of 0.0007% for raw milk and 0.00007% for pasteurized. I would like the safety/public health community to admit that these numbers are both tiny, and explain the hugely disproportionate emphasis by bureaucrats on taxpayer-funded attacks in the War Against Raw Milk. The hullabaloo present in this discussion is testament to the power of very tiny numbers, and to the power of an out-of-context statistical argument that one tiny number could be ten times as large as another tiny number. With all due respect to those few people who have fallen ill (from whatever kind of milk), the argument against raw milk is ridiculous, perched on a tiny foundation.
So, let's move on and let people choose what they want to eat.
On it. Sometimes these discussion just get too heavy. Armed with rodent spray, I'm heading over to challenge the people of WalMart for my entitled beaver butt juice.
MW
Never underestimate the needs and nuances of rodent control. Hollywood gets it:
MW
Look who is writing for Food Safety News. You just have to love Bill Marler.
Chris L.
http://www.countysheriffproject.org/
___________________________________________
30 years on SSI, and now this is MY website:
http://www.globalrevolution.us