O Canada! Will You Become First Nation to Criminalize Raw Milk Consumption?

A demonstrator outside an Ontario courthouse last year hearing a case against raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt.

After 23 years of unsuccessfully chasing down raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt via raids and court trials, the Ontario government seems finally to have settled on its version of the “nuclear” option: Its minions are seeking an injunction against the sale and purchase of raw milk, an action that could well have the effect of criminalizing all distribution and even consumption.

The injunction seems likely to be invoked by an Ontario judge next week after arguments next Monday and Tuesday, predicts Schmidt. The effects of the injunction will be immediately chilling, he explains, because implementation of the injunction will come with a proviso that Schmidt and the 150 members of his coop pay all legal and court costs associated with the government demand for the injunction, a cost that Schmidt has no illusions about: “I can guarantee you it is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.”

There’s an excellent summary of the current case at The Bovine.

Its conclusion: “If the courts grant the motions, all forms of raw milk processing, distribution, advocacy, or support will be criminalized. Farmers and others involved in production and distribution would face criminal charges. For the first time, criminal charges would extend to parents and other advocates even if they are not involved in raw milk production.”

As Schmidt puts it: “Mothers can be criminally charged when they pick up the milk.”

The major unknown: What will Schmidt and his coop members do if these dire predictions come to pass? Schmidt isn’t tipping his or the coop’s hand quite yet, but he notes this would be the biggest crisis yet faced by the farmer and members over 23 years of show trials, raids, and other tactics designed to make Schmidt and his raw milk followers go away. “Everyone can be arrested. They can take the property and the farm.” This, even though the coop members own the farm, and are merely consuming the milk from their own cows.

The government is counting on the threat of huge fines and possible jail time for those who violate an injunction, says Schmidt. “The government has become very smart. They don’t need brown shirts and boots. They have this regulatory scheme where they can pull one person at a time out of the bus. “

But Canadian raw milk drinkers have confounded the regulators several times in the past, most recently in 2015, when a group spontaneously organized at Schmidt’s farm and blocked a government truck from removing milk and equipment from the farm.

“I cannot predict what the next step will be this time.” But Schmidt notes that the coop and its supporters have the upper hand if they decide to act in concert. “If enough people have an uprising, what are they going to do?”

Lots of people have racked their brains trying to figure out why the Canadian ruling class is so persistent in attempting to put Schmidt out of business, and criminalize raw milk. The stated government worry is safety, yet Schmidt has never been associated with a single illness over the last 23 years, or even the hint of a customer complaint.

As guilty of over-reach as American food regulators have sometimes been with raw dairy, it’s difficult to imagine them staying with a case that has brought 23 years of terribly negative publicity and humiliation in the direction of Canadian food regulators.  I’ve told Schmidt a number of times I was certain that if he survived some particular legal attack, surely the Ontario regulators would decide the entire persecution wasn’t worth the the huge expenditure of time and energy. Yet each time he has rebuffed them, they have shown up again with some other scheme designed to derail raw milk in Ontario. There just is no rational explanation for what has happened there.

The only thing I have been able to come up with is that Canada’s processed milk industry has such attractive government support and subsidies that it continues to pressure the regulators to prevent Schmidt or anyone else from threatening the existing gravy train.

Schmidt needs all the support he can get. You can join him and coop members at the courthouse outside Toronto for the injunction proceedings next Monday and Tuesday. You can also contribute to his legal costs at this fundraising site.

109 comments to O Canada! Will You Become First Nation to Criminalize Raw Milk Consumption?

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    This political action is nothing less than Nelson Mandela in South Africa fighting apartheid or MLK fighting human rights here in the USA.
    Will it take hundreds of mothers being arrested for the simple act of consuming raw milk they get from cows they legally own themselves??? When the queen of England does just that !! Perhaps so.

    When challenging governments sometimes it takes a big ugly incident to make enough ugly news to create change.

    I can assure you that if everyone stands together…. that includes mass arrest, there will be change. Families in jail just does not sing well with Canadians!!

    Let the mothers and fathers take great comfort that I will personally nominate them in masse for the Nobel Peace Prize if this goes Nuclear and families must be jailed for the simple act of producing, or consuming their own raw milk. The right to consume foods of ones own choosing is basic!

    CA raw milk producers and consumers stand with you in total and complete solidarity! I can see a raw milk freedom march!! USA families Carrying containers of raw milk across the border and huge media coverage !!

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    Make this an international incident. !!

  • Gordon S Watson

    your fantasy has a fatal flaw in it, Mister McAffee. Foremost = the notion that Nelson Mandela was a ‘freedom fighter”. Mister Mandela would have been perfectly OK with Canada’s Soviet-style milk Directorate. Incarcerated for 2 decades after being convicted of conspiring to commit terrorism … denying it all the while he was alive, after his demise, it was proven he was a card-carrying commie all along. Your kinda guy? Before you glorify Nelson Mandela, take a good hard look at his legacy = the ANC at work, genocoding white farmers, as South Africa spirals down into 3rd world conditions. During the Vietnam era, the cry was “Bring the War home” … See if you can muster the integrity to admit that La Raza has the same end in mind for your farm

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    Don’t let the brainwashed technocrat’s involvement in this issue mislead you… The issue has little to do with food safety but rather, with the collective control of the sale and consumption of milk!!!

    In Ontario dairy farmers are required by law to sell their milk to the milk board, otherwise known as the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO). DFO’s viability hinges on the milk quota that each and every farmer is compelled to have, currently at 25,000 dollars per cow, in order to produce milk. The farmers do not “own” the quota and it can be taken away from the farmer on a moment’s notice at the boards discretion; hence, the reason why lending institutions steer away from using milk quota as security for a loan. Michael and his followers have chosen to produce and consume milk outside of that government-mandated system and as such are viewed as nonconformists and perceived as a threat to its cherished existence.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    Like I said….. I will gladly nominate the mothers, fathers and families for the Nobel Prize that stand and fight by going to jail for the basic human right to chose raw milk as a food.

    I really don’t mind being labeled a commie socialist by a racist, fascist, right wing, white supremacist, with hatred burning a hole in his soul. Quite an honor really.

    Labels really don’t mean much to me. I have been called much worse. Gordie….focus focus focus….on Canada. Remember… I am on your side.

    • Gordon S Watson

      in a forum like this… your mistakes are clear to anyone who cares to read it, regardless of whether they chime-in. And the record is there forever. In this instance – like so many others Mister McAffee – you toss in some streamofconsciousness, off-topic inanity, then skate away from it, when the FACTS come out. Holding up Nelson Mandela = a conspirator in many terrorist murders to advance communism = as your hero, proves that “the apple didn’t fall very far” from your family tree.

      Obvious to all who read this forum, is = your double-minded-ness. One day going on about a genuinely free market. Hours later, espousing the Democratic Party policies of happyface Red Fascism.

      “… hatred burning a hole in his soul” ? You got that part right, me Bucko. I hate the anti-christs with a pure hatred. See yesterday’s National Post article about the memorial in Ottawa for victims of Communism. See if you can muster the integrity to drop by when it’s built, so as to educate your-little-ol’-self about what monsters like your pal Nelson, did to white Christians, for the reason ONLY, that they were white and they were Christians. Mandela’s progeny continue the genocide this very hour, in South Africa, while useful idiots like you, avert their eyes whilst spouting the Central Party Line.

  • Emma G.

    The relevant Criminal Code offence is CCC section 127 “Disobeying a court order”) which states “(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, disobeys a lawful order made by a court of justice or by a person or body of persons authorized by any Act to make or give the order, other than an order for the payment of money, is, unless a punishment or other mode of proceeding is expressly provided by law, guilty of (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.”

    To be clear about this: There are NO plans to make raw milk consumption itself a criminal offence. The Canadian federal government (which administers Criminal laws such as the Criminal Code of Canada and the Controlled Substances Act) is not involved. This injunction is under a civil law, the (Ontario) Health Protection and Promotion Act. And IT only applies to York Municipality as the injunction is against: “Offering for sale, selling or distributing, delivering or counselling others to offer for sale, sell, deliver, or distribute unpasteurized milk or unpasteurized milk products within the jurisdiction of the Regional Municipality of York.” (The second injunction, under the (Ontario) Milk Act – again a civil law – is against “operating a milk plant without a licence.”)

    This type of civil legal action to try to control consumers is nothing new. In 2010, BC Supreme Court Justice Gropper issued an order which reads in-part: “A permanent injunction is hereby issued prohibiting the Respondents and anyone having notice of this Order from packaging and/or distribution of raw milk and/or raw milk products for human consumption.” Gordon has more information than I do: representing his fellow herdshare members, he was “John Doe” – see http://canlii.ca/t/28qpl. A top-notch lawyer confirmed for us in 2015 that this Order could be enforced against consumers, that everyone who “has heard of it” is deemed to have notice of it.

    Working to change the laws of both provinces is the only solution.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      I had a private discussion earlier today with a knowledgeable Canadian who made similar arguments. You, and the person I was debating, make it sound as if this injunction is something that happens spontaneously, automatically. The reality is that regulators have huge amounts of discretion about what they will pursue and what they won’t pursue. Yes, real human beings need to seek out an injunction, or any other legal action, against a farmer (or restaurant or factory owner). It’s not something that just happens. Then a judge needs to approve it, which is what the court arguments early next week are all about.

      It’s clear that the officials seeking the injunction against Michael Schmidt and his coop are doing it because they are targets. The coop members own the farm, so they are simply drinking the milk of their own cows. There is absolutely no reason for the regulators to go after property owners drinking milk from their cows. It’s legal pretty much everywhere around the globe. But Ontario officials are clearly trying for a new precedent. It’s not something they have to do, it’s something they have chosen to do. It’s simply a continuation of a 23-year campaign against a farmer who has tried very hard to be peaceful and compliant.

      Moreover, working to change the laws isn’t the only solution. There are other ways to deal with unjust and arbitrary legal actions, most notably civil disobedience. Under the pressure of disobedience and public outcry, the laws sometimes change more quickly than anyone thought possible.

      • Emma G.

        If by “regulators” you are referring to employees of the health unit (I wouldn’t call them “regulators” – they don’t “regulate” anything the way a provincial utilities commission such as the Ontario Energy Board does), under the HPPA (sections 10 to 11.1) they must investigate. E.g.: “Duty to inspect – 10. (1) Every medical officer of health shall inspect or cause the inspection of the health unit served by him or her for the purpose of preventing, eliminating and decreasing the effects of health hazards in the health unit. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.7, s. 10 (1).”

        There is no “huge amount of discretion” here. They must do their jobs. If a complaint has been filed, they must follow up on it.

        We see how Canadian authorities deal with civil disobedience in the 1993 Clayoquot Sound logging protests in B.C. Of 932 people arrested, 860 were prosecuted by the pro-forest-union NDP government of Mike “Clearcut Mikey” Harcourt in eight mass trials, with all those prosecuted for criminal intent found guilty. Punishments included fines, criminal records, and jail time. Yes, this did garner huge public support for environmental causes, but old growth forests in BC are still not being protected to any great extent.

        Civil disobedience can draw public attention to an issue, yes, and I agree that it might be necessary in order to get public support for raw milk legalization. Protesters violating an injunction can be charged with either civil or criminal contempt-of-court and face fines and jail time.

        And, “rights and freedoms are not absolute in Canadian law, as section 1 of the Charter allows governments to place reasonable limits on rights and freedoms that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” See http://ablawg.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/blog_jk_occupy_feb2012.pdf for a more complete analysis of the use of civil disobedience in Canada.

        (p.s., David, please don’t use American terms such as “regulators” for Canadian civil servants who are ultimately employed by the Ministries and doing their jobs under the Acts. This only confuses people. These civil servants are not “regulating.” They are carrying out the functions detailed in the Acts under the auspices of the Minister, a member of the Executive Council (Cabinet) of the elected government.

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          “If a complaint has been filed….” Once again, you suggest that some non-human entity has been taking legal action. An individual human being filed a complaint. Who filed the complaint? A “civil servant”? Sorry, in my lexicon, a “civil servant” who has authority to penalize individuals and businesses for going about their lives is a regulator.

      • Emma G.

        David: “The coop members own the farm, so they are simply drinking the milk of their own cows.”

        Maybe, but this still needs to be proven in court. Here is an excerpt from one of the injunction applications, the one filed by York Municipality:

        “(jj) Even after the purchase of 20 Class A Preference shares in ARC, shareholders are still required to pay $3 to $5.50 per litre for the unpasteurized milk they purchase from ARC;”

        “(nn) Membership in ARC does not convey ownership rights in the Farm.”

        So members will need to prove in court that they actually do own the farm, to refute paragraph “nn”. I hope they can do this. The fact that they are buying milk though sounds like they do not own the animals.

        As an agister friend of mine puts it: “If you own the cow, the milk is free.” You don’t need to buy it per litre. You do however, need to hire someone (a professional agistment company, for example) to care for your animals if you are not there to do so yourself, but this should be a monthly salary, not a price-per-litre. My friend is employed for $5,000 per month to care for 3 cows, and the livestock owner group (or “LOG”) which employs his agistment company pays the same monthly salary no matter how much milk they receive from their cows. He writes about this model at http://bcherdshare.org/community/livestock-owner-group/ .

        • David Gumpert David Gumpert

          Emma, in normal everyday life, real estate transactions and deeded rights don’t have to “be proven in court.” They are a basic, fundamental part of our systems of commerce and investment. The Ontario regulators have challenged this particular transaction as part of a campaign to shut down this farm and ban raw milk. Simple as that.

          Now, presumably Michael Schmidt and the coop can produce the documentation underlying their transaction, and demonstrate that the coop owns the farm via deeded rights. If the coop has a deed, then it should be able to dictate terms of the business arrangement among the owners. Bottom line, there should be no question about the owners’ rights to the milk from the cows on their farm. Property rights are paramount in free societies like Canada and the U.S.

          When it comes to regulation and the law, a shrewd lawyer can always find technicalities to question to achieve a particular outcome (i.e. banning raw milk). I’m surprised that you and other smart Canadians are so easily taken in and manipulated by these underhanded tactics.

          • Emma G.

            David: “Property rights are paramount in free societies like Canada and the U.S.”

            No, this is another American assumption. Property rights are not a Charter Right in Canada (= in the Constitution Act, 1982). The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) did contain property rights, but this Act is NOT a constitutional document and only addresses some federal matters. It doesn’t affect provincial issues.

            Some very limited rights are indirectly mentioned in a few Charter clauses, i.e. “7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” But the Court has ruled that raw milk laws do not violate this clause.

            From one excellent website detailing the property rights issue:

            “If property rights had been included in the Charter, certain laws restricting or removing property rights would be unconstitutional, and the courts would have been able to strike them down. But property rights were deliberately excluded from the Charter … and subsequent proposals to amend the Charter by adding protection for private property have not been successful.” -http://propertyrightsguide.ca/are-property-rights-protected-in-canadian-law/

          • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

            Emma, The following statement by English jurist, judge, and Tory politician William Blackstone has significant meaning for those of us who recognize the fundamental importance of freedom to a healthy society. Indeed, the commentary is a contradiction of the socialistic utilitarian rational of forced intervention by government bureaucracies for the so-called greater good = an ethically and morally corrupt rational that appears to have gained the upper hand in our nations (USA and Canada). The utilitarianist has cunningly manipulated the law as a means to infringe on property owners in order to achieve their onerous objectives. Nowhere is this more evident then in government funded health care, education and agricultural cheap food policies and subsidies.

            “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. …Besides the public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights…”
            Blackstone Commentaries, 2:138-9

            The Ontario Landowners association recently published an article that states in part,
            “Here in Canada, we do have rule of law and a system of property rights supported by law. However, those laws are being disrespected and inappropriately applied. The panel heard time and time again about how people have lost their faith in government to protect their right to use, enjoy, and profit from their property. Bylaw officers and government agents feel free to trespass on private property without a warrant, to write up charges on the strength of one anonymous complaint, and to drag out a court case until the accused is financially, physically, and mentally bankrupt. We heard of instances where property was effectively taken without compensation. “If we have no rights to our land, then why do we have expropriation law”, said Tom Black, who challenged the audience to provide solutions for restoring respect for property rights.”

        • Jon

          If I co-own a cow, which costs me a known amount to keep – perhaps by paying someone a monthly salary, and I understand the expected quantity of milk from said cow, then it is perfectly feasible and logical to work out the price I need to pay per unit to cover that cost. It seems odd that you should claim that this is not a viable economic model.

          • Emma G.

            Jon, yes a price-per-litre is economically viable – didn’t say otherwise (but for smaller herds with fluctuating production, it’s not as financially stable as having a set dollar amount paid no matter how much milk is received).

            BUT, we’ve seen that having a dollar amount *per litre* (among other things) will be used in court as evidence of sales taking place. So in response to seeing the hell that the Ontario enforcers are putting farmers through, some herdshares are switching over to this new model that one herdshare created to address the issues in “The Tetley decision.”

            But this goes beyond pricing: I.e. is GST/HST being charged and submitted on the agistment services fee? Have members organized and do they have a group decision-making process? How are decisions made about other products from those animals such as meat, calves/kids/lambs, and manure? Are members handling transportation arrangements for the milk? What’s the group decision-making process for purchase/sale of livestock? Justice Tetley considered a lack of member decision-making as being further evidence that members were just buying milk. 🙁

            And can the livestock owners quickly move their herd to another farm if enforcement officers try to shut down operations? One herdshare faced this possibility last fall. After a cease-and-desist order was issued, members had to – among other preparations – make a contingency plan to move their herd overnight if necessary.

  • Emma G.

    David, let me answer some of your questions as to “why.”

    This has little to do with the processors. They realize that the incredibly niche raw milk market is not ever going to be a threat. This issue is seen as a public health issue for the most part.

    The “why” is that public health policy in Canada is based on “evidence-based decision-making,” and this on peer-reviewed academic evidence. Cabinet Ministers rely on the policy analysts within their Ministries for advice on the potential ramifications of changing a law, and base their decisions on these briefing reports. These policy analysts (often PhD’s in microbiology or public health) are basing their recommendations on what they perceive to be scientific consensus, including these articles:

    – “Raw milk is 150 times more dangerous than pasteurized. States that restrict sale of nonpasteurized products have fewer outbreaks and illnesses.” (Langer, Ayers, Grass, et al. “Nonpasteurized Dairy Products, Disease Outbreaks, and State Laws—United States, 1993–2006.” Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 18, No. 3, March 2012.

    – “Outbreaks increase after legalization.” (Mungai, Behravesh, and Gould. “Increased Outbreaks Associated with Nonpasteurized Milk, United States, 2007–2012”. Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 21, No. 1, January 2015, pp. 119-122.)

    – “34.41% of raw milk is contaminated with pathogens” (Steele, McNab, Poppe, Griffiths, et al. “Survey of Ontario Bulk Tank Raw Milk for Food-Borne Pathogens”. Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 60, No. 11, 1997, pp. 1341-1346)

    – “Up to 17% of all raw milk consumers get sick from it every year” (Robinson, Scheftel, and Smith. “Raw Milk Consumption among Patients with Non–Outbreak-related Enteric Infections.” Minnesota, USA, 2001–2010″, Emerging Infectious Diseases, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 2014)

    Also Canada has no central reporting system for outbreak data, so relies on the U.S. CDC for “accurate information” about raw milk. This is what they read: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/rawmilk/raw-milk-index.html .

    Yes, associations such as the Dairy Farmers of Ontario, Alberta Milk, B.C. Dairy Association and the other commercial farming lobby groups are asked by governments for their own opinions on the issue, and their position is that raw milk is that pasteurization is the only means to prevent outbreaks, that legalization will cause outbreaks.

    Moreso than these though, governments listen to the Canadian Public Health Association and the Canadian Medical Association, both of which support laws prohibiting raw milk distribution, e.g. http://www.cpha.ca/en/programs/history/achievements/09-shf/milk.aspx .

    If you want laws to change in Canada, you must provide evidence to governments (no, not “regulators”) that raw milk can be legalized without causing increased numbers of outbreaks, and it must be from studies solid enough to have been published in peer-reviewed journals.

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

      “If you own the cow, the milk is free.”
      Rubbish… Any individual that makes that kind of a statement is extremely naïve and has no concept of what ‘s entailed with ownership of livestock and a farm!

      There may not be retail and distribution coast associated with drinking milk from ones own cow, or eating beef, pork, chicken, turkey etc. Ownership however, does not make the milk or whatever is produced on the farm “free”.

      There are various ways of recapturing those cost and that should be left to the discretion of the owners as to how that is accomplished. Not the regulators a.k.a. civil servants… or the courts!

      Note… the legalized public sale and consumption of raw milk is a different ball of wax when compared to private consumption. And as far as the milk boards are concerned, they’ll fight tooth and nail to protect the quota system, so it’s convenient for them to side with the health departments’ status quo relative to the so-called hazards of drinking raw milk. The boards’ unwritten yet clear philosophy with respect to raw milk sales… “if you give an inch they’ll take a mile”. Indeed, with the current decline in milk consumption and producers in Ontario having to endure recent price cuts for milk, every inch is important!!!

      • Emma G.

        Ken: “Rubbish… Any individual that makes that kind of a statement is extremely naïve and has no concept of what ‘s entailed with ownership of livestock and a farm!”

        Strange, Ken, because I was quoting a raw milk farmer of my acquaintance here. He would likely be amused to hear that someone has called him “naïve.”

  • Lynn_M

    I think it’s one more step that TPTB are taking in order to dumb the population down, along with forced vaccinations, GMO foods, fluoridation, 5G, widespread EMFs, pseudofoods, statins, and Common Core education. An unhealthy population is compliant. Raw milk drinkers tend to be independent thinkers. They’re starting in the Regional Municipality of York, but it if sticks there, you’ll see it spreading to other areas.

    • Emma G.

      Agreed, Lynn, that this tactic will be adopted elsewhere if it sticks in York. That’s why hard work has to be done to change the law before this happens.

      Despite the fundraising, I’m pessimistic that the outcome of this case will be what we want to see. No amount of money is going to win the case if the consumers cannot prove that they truly own the farm and the animals and are not purchasing raw milk (and the evidence as described in the injunction petition appears to indicate otherwise). And the truck was clearly distributing in violation of the HPPA.

      In Canada, violating laws doesn’t make those laws change. Only an elected government can change the laws. And there are tried-and-true ways of going about doing this, and these means have not yet been tried in Ontario and have only recently (2014 onward) started to be tried in B.C. This movement is still in its infancy in Canada. But we won’t get anywhere until the raw milk communities organize in each province as broad-based associations, incorporated provincially to represent their communities, and start working to try to change their specific provincial law.

      And if you want a quick reference for those laws, they are posted at https://rawmilkpolicy.wordpress.com/provinces/

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

      Yes, its one more step that “red fascists” are using to increase top down governance of the masses.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    If you are going to wait and look for change after peer reviewed studies contradict current biased research…. you will wait forever.

    Raw milk research has a structural problem. It is funded solely by those that benefit from it.

    One of the biggest problems with raw milk is the half truth—half lie. When all of the raw milk that is studied is raw milk that is intended for pasteurization and not intended for direct human consumption….of course the data will be screwed all to hell.

    If you want to see true data that will foretell the safety of raw milk for human consumption… then test and study raw milk for human consumption.
    The FDA refuses to even acknowledge raw milk for human consumptions existance.

    The long play is happening in CA and across the USA and even Canada.

    The win will go to those that persist the longest and build markets that prove the truth by actual consumption. The internet and time will take care of the rest. Our breve fighters in Ontario must risk it all to bring focus to this issue.

    Time, heat and pressure makes diamonds. This is heat and pressure. The good news is that Canada is not known for torture in its jails and there is little appetite for incarceration of mothers and families. The news will eat this up.

    • Emma G.

      “The good news is that Canada is not known for torture in its jails and there is little appetite for incarceration of mothers and families. ”

      Don’t bet on it. Regarding torture, the routine use of solitary confinement is notorious. Just last month a prisoner committed suicide after 118 days in solitary confinement. The U.N. regards solitary for more than 15 days as torture. The Ontario Ombudsperson received 827 complaints in just 4 years about the use of solitary and has formally called upon the Province to reform its practices.

      And Canada was happy to incarcerate an 81 year old great-grandmother – twice – see http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/81-year-old-protester-loses-court-appeal-1.964807 . She was also jailed for a year when she was 73, again for contempt of court charges incurred from protesting logging of ancient forests.

      I agree with you and David though that this may take citizens willing to go to jail before the laws change. Public awareness and support for this issue is vital, if the laws are going to change.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    I am ashamed of Trump. He just grabbed and shoved One of the NATO ministers aside so Trump could be in front of a group in a NATO picture.
    It is one thing when your wife hates your guts….quite another when a NATO ally is hurt and begins to hate our guts.

    The list of Trumps debacles is so long….it boggles the mind and questions the soul. How could anyone be so niave and stupid as to vote for this complete jerk? His recently proposed budget tortures farmers and completely abandons( eliminates safety net for food for mothers and children ) all of those poor and under educated that voted for him. These are the same fools that buy lotto tickets believing they will win instead of staying in school and being smart and working hard. This is what a president looks like when the undereducated make choices for our country. He lied to them and they believed his snake charming hatred mongering psychotic greedy racist rants.

    I really did think that most people regardless of party would smartly vote the candidate that would support their needs

    I guess that is the definition of stupidity. When you vote against your interests…. that’s really ignorant and really stupid.
    Our educational place in the world has just become self evident. We are so far down the list… this is what happens when the Russians get their way and stupid people follow and play into the hands of our enemies.

    2017 Christmas present. Trump resigns or is impeached. Either path is fine with me.

  • Gordon S Watson

    Mr McAffee’s latest inane stream0fconsciousness vent against electors who hold a different opinion than he does, demonstrates what I said yesterday : him being one of the “useful idiots” fomenting the communist strategy of class hatred. If his comment has anything to do with REAL MILK, I cannot see it. Mark McAffee’s hero is Nelson Mandela … a terrorist whose specialty was “necklacing” political opponents = Hanging a tire around their neck, filled with gasoline, then torching live humans being. Apparently Mister McAffee feels this made Mandela worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize!!! You’ll notice that he hasn’t repudiated Mandela’s murderous thuggery as one of the ANC’s tactics of political action. No, the crypto-commies suddenly go silent when the FACTS come out

  • Anonymous

    The problem that Michael Schmidt has always faced in Ontario is that it is illegal under the HPPA to “sell, offer for sale, deliver or DISTRIBUTE” unpasteurized milk. I see no way of getting around the fact that getting milk from one central location into multiple dispersed locations constitutes “distributing” it. Even if one conceded that the co-op members own the milk (which legally they do NOT, but I’ll return to this), then there is still the fact that someone is making a distribution. Either the co-op is distributing it, or some human being working for the co-op is distributing it. So there will always be someone who can be charged under the HPPA.

    Furthermore, owning units in the co-op does not give any particular shareholder the right to specific assets, or a portion of specific assets, owned by the co-op. If I’m a shareholder of Sears, I don’t have any right to walk into a Sears store and demand some of the merchandise. I have to buy the merchandise like everyone else who doesn’t own shares in Sears. So legally, the argument that the co-op members already own the milk simply isn’t correct.

    The Ontario legislature, when it passed this legislation back in the 1930s, did not apparently wish to make any provision for cowshares, herdshares, farmshares, or anything similar. That’s why they included the word “distribute” among the offences. David, it really isn’t accurate to characterize this as people being prosecuted for drinking milk from their own cows.

    It has been argued in court that the genuine protection of human health does not require s. 18 of the HPPA at all, because s. 17 of the same law covers everything that should be of concern to public health officials. It reads as follows:
    “17. No person shall sell or offer for sale any food that is unfit for human consumption by reason of disease, adulteration, impurity or other cause.”

    This argument went nowhere.

    The best argument available in the raw milk battle in Canada is the one that was already tried in Michael’s litigation in 2011: namely, that s. 18 of the HPPA violates s. 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 reads: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Unfortunately, Michael’s evidentiary record was not sufficient for the various levels of judges to stick their necks out and agree that there had been a violation of the right to security of the person.

    This does not mean that no-one will ever succeed in making the s. 7 argument about raw milk. The court changed its tune about prostitution laws in the recent Bedford case precisely because the litigants worked extremely diligently to bring copious concrete evidence on this precise point. However, it would take lots of resources to put together such evidence, and nobody has yet stepped up to the plate.

    It is true that somebody had to exercise some discretion in order to bring these injunction applications, and I am puzzled about why they chose to do so. However, it might well have something to do with the fact that “supply management” (i.e. the dairy cartel) in Canada is under greater threat than ever. The dairy cartel has always opposed Michael Schmidt’s operation because he also defies the milk quota laws in addition to the HPPA. They may be the ones who goaded the health authorities into this action. And there are still people in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency whose ox was gored by the dismissal of Michael’s charges in the Montana Jones sheep case. Maybe some of them spurred this on.

    An Access to Information request might reveal some interesting material, but most of us do not have our entire lives available to devote to this subject.

    • Emma G.

      As a follow-up to your post, Anonymous, I’d like to invite all to read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision at http://canlii.ca/t/g6456, particularly paragraphs 10, 30, 31, and 46.

      Para. 46: “A law is arbitrary ‘where there is no connection to its objective.’ A law is overbroad ‘where there is no rational connection between the purposes of the law and some, but not all, of its impacts’… The scientific evidence that I have already mentioned easily reaches the standard of “sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act”… The law does not offend the overbreadth principle by targeting all unpasteurized milk. There is no evidence to suggest that the legislature could somehow narrow the reach of the legislation and still achieve its purpose of protecting public health.”

      The Crown argued food safety. The defendant argued food choice. In any argument between choice and safety, the latter will win every time.

      But para. 46 implies that if evidence had been presented that “the legislature could narrow the reach of the legislation and still [protect] public health”, the case could be won.

      The door could be open to this approach, to prove that there IS another way – one which involves a regulatory program of farm registration, inspection, on-farm food safety plans, and bacterial testing standards — elements which are common in other places where raw milk is legal – see the FSA standards for “raw drinking milk” in the U.K. for example. We could even suggest a training program similar to CQM, but for raw milk production – using RAWMI training as a basis for this type of program comes to mind. And, could evidence be presented to the court in the form of a record of low-coliform, pathogen-free test results that are being achieved by RAWMI-trained farmers?

    • Emma G.

      Anonymous wrote, ” If I’m a shareholder of Sears, I don’t have any right to walk into a Sears store and demand some of the merchandise. I have to buy the merchandise like everyone else who doesn’t own shares in Sears”

      That is because Sears is designed that way, as a major retailer which has thousands of shareholders. However, when I owned a smaller retail store as a sole proprietor, I could remove stock from the store inventory as an “owners drawing” without purchasing it as a customer, because I owned the store. But if the store had instead been owned, for example, by a 3-person co-op, then each co-owner could have done the same, had we three co-op members all agreed to this.

      As a hypothetical shareholder in Sears, you actually do own that small amount of the assets of the store. But obviously it’s not practical for shares to be redeemed or profits taken in any form other than selling shares and receiving dividends.

  • Diane Hastings

    I would like to send an email to the lawyers representing Mr. Schmidt et al. in the upcoming May 29, 30 2017 Injunction hearing. Would it be possible to get the name(s) and possibly email address(s)?

    Thank you very much,

    Diane Hastings

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      My understanding is that both Michael Schmidt and the coop have no legal representation, that they are representing themselves. The coop had to change lawyers about a week ago, and asked for an extension so the new lawyer could become familiar with the case, but the extension was denied. So the case will proceed next Monday and Tuesday.

  • This is a case where the government claims ownership based on licensure in the Public Domain. But note, this case falls outside that jurisdiction, just like in the case of my farmer Vernon Hershberger who was also entrapped under the same paradigm. “Selling raw milk without a license” is a ruse.
    The fact is that the members of Michael Schmidt’s farm are there by private contract (just like they were for Vernon Hershberger in Wisconsin). Therefore, the government is outside this agreement -has no jurisdiction over it. The case is a waste of taxpayer money, time and effort.
    Why is everyone consenting to this entrapment and thereby giving legitimacy to this fraud? A contract is between two people, not a person and a government entity.
    But note, the government will not acknowledge this. They will pull everyone into their jurisdiction unless you refuse to go. You allow this travesty by your consent. It’s time to take back your rights and refuse to go into their jurisdiction when it has no hold over a private contract.

    • Emma G.

      Rosanne, this case is in Canada, NOT in the U.S. In Canada, ALL commerce is regulated. All contracts of any type fall under commercial law. All food production, distribution, processing, and transportation is regulated. “Private contract” is a falsehood – it is still a commercial transaction and falls under the law.

      You can’t apply American law to Canada. If you need to refresh your memory on the laws governing food and raw milk production in Ontario, they are right here: https://rawmilkpolicy.wordpress.com/provinces/ontario-laws .

      Personally, I think a large part of our problem up here is we listen to Americans such as yourself trying to convince us that what works in the U.S. will work in Canada. We follow their advice and end up in deeper trouble than before.

      • David Gumpert David Gumpert

        I admit, it’s difficult for Americans to comprehend how the State could pursue and abuse a farmer who contributes to his community as much as Michael does, for 23 years. For all America’s problems with food choice and corporate agriculture, that probably couldn’t have happened here. As Rosanne suggests, Americans just wouldn’t put up with the fraudulent regulation Canadians seem to not only tolerate, but even to welcome on some level.

        I sometimes think Michael Schmidt would have done better to have settled in the U.S. than in Canada. His problem may be that he is just too American in his makeup.

        • Emma G.

          David, perhaps some of the difference is that Canada was founded upon the principle of “Peace, Order, and Good Government” as written in our Constitution of 1867. There is a general feeling of distrust for anyone who “rocks the boat” in society or disobeys laws, even unfair civil laws.

          Governments are elected in and they then pass the laws (= legislation and regulations). The election of the governing party gives those laws legitimacy. Want a law changed? Then elect in a new government, i.e. formed by party that wins the most seats in the election.

          [Most provinces have at least 3 or 4 options to choose from, usually some variant on Conservative, Liberal, NDP, and Green Parties, plus a whole host of smaller ones (there are 20 registered political parties in Ontario alone!).]

          The party leader of the party which wins the election is then asked by the Queen’s representative, the Lieutenant Governor (or the Governor General, federally), to form the next government. They become the Premier (or Prime Minister, federally). They then choose their Cabinet from among their Caucus, assigning each new Minister a portfolio (i.e. Dr. Eric Hoskins as Minister of Health, Jeff Leal as Minister of Ag, etc.). We want the laws changed? We need to convince the elected Government – and in specific get the support of the Ministers in charge of those portfolios – in order to change the law.

          This is a very different political system than that of the U.S., from what I gather.

          • Emma G., all governments claim they are founded on “Peace and Order” but what they say and do are two different things. In fact, it is why the people must hold government accountable for their actions when governments go beyond their scope. Remember, true government is made up “of and for the people” (vs. “of and for the corporations”) and through the consent of the governed.
            When governments go rogue then it is time for the people to stand up and withdraw consent.
            To cite statutes and man’s laws when it comes at your own expense and the loss of natural rights is to have drunk the kool-aid.

    • Emma G.

      Rosanne: “Remember, true government is made up “of and for the people” (vs. “of and for the corporations”) and through the consent of the governed.”

      Check your American assumptions at the border, Rosanne. I suggest a course in Canadian Studies. Also, definitely read Gordon’s response. Our Head of State is the Queen of Canada, governing by Divine Right. She requires no other mandate than that from God.

      • Emma G.

        Having said that Rosanne, the Canadian people make their decisions regarding the laws we abide by when we vote in elections. We vote for the party whose policy platform we agree with. The party who wins the most seats in an election forms the government and its leader becomes Premier (provincially) or Prime Minister (federally). If we do not like a law, we can either (1) toss out the miscreants at the next election or (2) lobby to get that law changed.

        Unfortunately it looks like other than some earnest petitions (which governments almost always ignore), there has been no campaign yet by raw milk consumers and farmers to change Ontario law. No association has been created yet to represent the community and lobby government, to ask for meetings with Ministers and negotiate, to bring forward legislative proposals and the policy analyses to back them up. The bright side is that there is still the opportunity for all of this to happen, and for laws to change. Maybe this court case will be the incentive for this to start?

          • Emma G.

            Within limits, Ken. Keep in mind that the Constitution gives provinces two “outs” – the “reasonable limits” clause and the “notwithstanding clause”:

            “1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

            “33 (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.”

            Quebec has invoked Section 33 numerous times to deliberately violate the minority language rights of Anglophones. And the Ontario Court ruled that Section 1 was appropriate to justify laws placing limits on raw milk, given the evidence of risk that was presented to the Court. Hopefully new and better evidence will achieve a different outcome.

            The Charter is a rather awkward tack-on to what was the U.K.’s “Supremacy of Parliament” principle that has been an inherent part of Canadian government since the start. And provinces lobbied to get these “outs” included in it, in order to try to preserve something of this principle.

          • Emma G.

            Ken, lobbying to change the law in the traditional manner is also a lot less stressful and costly than trying to go through the court. It also shows good faith, in a non-adversarial and non-confrontational negotiating process, to keep lawyers out of it.

            To see how B.C. has been doing it, go to http://bcherdshare.org/b-c-status-report-march-2016 . You may need to use Internet Explorer as your browser in order to hear the voice part of the presentation.

          • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

            Emma, Any lobbying effort in its attempt to bring about a change in law will inevitably end up in court.

          • Emma G.

            Ken: “Emma, Any lobbying effort in its attempt to bring about a change in law will inevitably end up in court.”

            How so, Ken? Please explain.

          • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

            Emma, When it comes to challenging existing laws seldom do those laws change based on lobbying alone. Inevitably the issue ends up in court before the government is prompted to acts.

            When women lobbied for the right to vote, it wasn’t until the issue went to court that the law changed.

            As described above, Japanese residents in BC were in the end given full citizenship rights, including the right to vote following extensive lobbying and a court ruling. The same can be said for natives and peoples of various religious affiliations in both pre and post confederation Canada.

            When women lobbied for the right to choose to have an abortion it wasn’t until that issue went to court and the courts refusal to address whether or not the fetus should be considered a person that the law changed. Canada is now one of the few countries in the Western world that does not have any legal restrictions on abortion.

          • Emma G.

            Ken Conrad: “Emma, When it comes to challenging existing laws seldom do those laws change based on lobbying alone. Inevitably the issue ends up in court before the government is prompted to acts.”

            You are wrong here, Ken. It appears the way you describe because issues that hit the court room are the ones that then get media-play, because legal proceedings sell newspapers.

            But in likely 99 out of 100 cases, changes (note, I did not say “challenges”) to existing laws come through the non-adversarial route of sitting down at the boardroom table and negotiating. I know this, because I have been there on both sides of the table over the last two-and-a-bit decades, both as a civil servant and as also a citizen lobbying for change.

            Have you yourself had first-hand experience in this process? Met with Ministers or Deputy Ministers or their representatives?

            These constructive and positive negotiations do not make the news, because they are not exciting. There is no adrenaline rush for the newspaper subscriber. They take time and hard work. Call them “back room meetings” if you like, but likely hundreds happen each day across Canada — they are part of the routine business of public policy decision-making.

            And the open door then is usually slammed shut when legal action begins, because the government must then be very careful about what messages/information it gives, and to ensure that nothing is said that might compromise its legal position. I.e., once legal action begins, all constructive dialogue comes to an abrupt end until the legal action has been concluded. Legal Services Branch in-effect gags civil servants who would otherwise be happily meeting and talking. It can be very frustrating to both negotiating parties, because Ministry policy wonks often don’t like LSB any more than the public does — legal fees paid to LSB can be a big drain on a Ministry budget and often achieve very little, and often both parties are committed to working together at the table to create a new model that works both for government and stakeholders.

          • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

            Emma,I have had experience in the process on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and travelled to Ottawa and met with ministers and their assistants. Admittedly the lobbying process does work provided that the government and bureaucrats don’t take sides and dig in their heals and refuse to negotiate as is the case with Michael Schmidt and his coop. In fact I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there were professional lobbyist working on behalf of the milk processing industry and Dairy Farmers of Ontario counter lobbying the raw milk consumer movement.

            Sometimes going to court is the only option especially when it comes to defending fundamental human rights. From what I have observed it doesn’t appear that there is a great deal of difference between Canada and the U.S. in that regard. Indeed, David’s suggestion that, “Property rights are paramount in free societies like Canada and the U.S.” is correct.

          • Emma G.

            Ken, it looks like DFO currently has 20 registered in-house lobbyists, according to the Integrity Commissioner’s website. DFO also gave $11,771 to the Ontario Liberals in 2014/2015. They also splashed $1,919 at other parties.

            As for Michael and his co-op, sadly I believe they have used the wrong approach.

  • Zeb Landon

    Would anyone have an opinion on the Canada Multiculturalism Act as it might pertain to a farmshare member? Does that Act not offer some protection against government persecution on account of race, ethnicity, religion, language, AND CULTURE?

    My culture is that I was raised on raw milk and plenty of it (until my mid-teens when my parents’ farm business altered). My ancestors at least 5 generations back owned their own cows, and in my living room we have a Norfolk County Fair trophy dated 1895 for prize purebred Jersey cattle. Throughout my upbringing, I enjoyed drinking plenty of milk — it was regarded by us children as an endless supply, so my body grew up very accustomed to it. I have never been sick from it, and raw milk consumption presently I experience as greatly boosting my health and well-being.

    My question is: Since we in Canada would not deny an Inuit or First Nations Indian the right to harvest wild fish and force him/her to buy pre-cooked farmed-fish, or worse, genetically-modified farmed-fish, so why should my cultural tradition be treated differently and unequally? Is my cultural tradition “less equal” than another? Why should I be forced to obtain milk from the mass commercial market, in which a consumer has no knowledge of the farm source of milk, bottling practices, etc., and no say as to adherence to organic farm management.

    • Exactly so, Zeb Landon! Exactly so!

      • Gordon S Watson

        where we differ, Roseanne Lindsay, is = you asserting “Remember, true government is made up “of and for the people” ” Yeah, that’s what your constitution says, but what we – north of the 49th parallel and still British subjects – have going for us, is, the ritual of the Coronation Oath of our Queen Elizabeth II. Which goes back to the day the prophet Samuel anointed Saul to be king over the Israelites, white people, us. Properly … de jure, authority for government issues from our God, namely Jesus Christ. People in America knew that, too … ‘way back when the 13 states confederated demselves. Go study the documents of the time … dis-abuse thyself of the anti-christ programming you’ve assimilated in the public fool system. The rallying cry was “No King but Jesus”. De Toqueville said “America is great because America is good” Then, Christian Identity was preached from the pulpits.

        60 years ago my old man came back from Korea and said to me “The United States ought not to be the world’s policeman”…. start with realizing you were lied-to. Korea was not a war. It was “Police action” of the United Nations. Now “who can make war with the Beast? In my lifetime I’ve seen it go from the world loving America, to hating us because power has been usurped by race traitors in high places, brutalizing people with whom we have no quarrel. The king, i.e. the one who presides over Congress, always requires the priesthood in support. The day we see real Christians, stand up to the racketeers who run organized religion, is when things will start to change ; Judgment starts at the house of God.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    Several years ago, I did a trans Canada speakers tour all about raw milk. At every stop, I spoke with regulated Canadian dairymen. Each said that they drank their own raw milk. Each also said that the laws were strict because of the milk pool and market policies.

    Raw milk safety is a ruse. It is a living denial of other raw milk markets that have very successfully brought safe raw milk to retail stores for tens of thousands or more each week.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    Market protection is an incredibly powerful force. It drives directly to a producers ability to survive and exist.
    Money is probably the most powerful mankind created force on earth. It is the modern means to eat, provide shelter, and otherwise exist.
    Consumption of a food of ones own choosing and a mothers choice to feed her family is also a very powerful force.

    Hence…. the massive conflict and collision between forces.

    They can live in harmony. But getting to harmony requires war.

    It is Michael that said: raw milk is love… but it is also war.

  • Raoul Bedi

    Emma G. : What about “peer-reviewed” literature, not just about organic raw milk’s safety but its wonderful health benefits, from Europe ? Since raw milk is mostly legal in Europe, to the point where you can get it from 24 hour vending machines, would not those long term studies have weight in a Canadian Court of law ?

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    This was shared by Ron Stephens of Rock The boat Radio in support of Michael Schmidt.

    Canadian health regulators/civil servants/bureaucrats, politicians, and the conventional medical establishment have a poor concept of what constitutes good health… THEY ARE PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN CONTROL AND THEREFORE LIMITING THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.

  • Mark mcafee Mark mcafee

    Emma G.

    In my non- Canadian California RAWMI mind I totally agree with you

    There are Phd experts at UC Davis with research partners all over the world including Switzerland that could be called to testify. They have at least 8 peer reviewed published articles that all but prove ( they are unfuted ) that elements only found in raw milk is responsible for the following:

    Dramatic decrease in asthma
    Heals excema
    Reduces ear infections
    Reduces colds
    Reduces and protects against allergies

    ( Dr. Lalles …less studied is the fact that raw milk and raw cheese has been shown to be vital part of the French Paradox because of the activity of the Alfa Phosphatase enzyme etc as a strong anti inflammatory system)

    LMU study, PASTURE cohort, GABRIELA study, PARSiFAL study…and more!!
    Making a case for health based on current leading science is very strong position to take, especially when consumption of pasteurized milk is identified as the most allergenic food in the USA ( FDA data )

    Indicting pasteurized milk and making a clinical case for raw milk….that’s my legal pathway !! It shows raw milk consumers to be well educated and well informed.

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    I sat next to a political scientist and a Phd Socialogist in Copenhagen last night at a wedding.
    They were both very worried about Trump and even more deeply concerned about America and how we could ever vote a psychopath into office.
    I leave in a few days, but it has been a 100% concensus in three countries that I have been in…. the EU is freaked out about Trump and are glued to the news about ever detail of this drama.

    Putting America first means everyone else is last. That policy simply does not fly in a world where fair trade goes two ways.
    Trump has made an ass of himself with every handshake, and every shove and every shallow statement that further demonstrated his ignorance and narcissistic egocentric idiotic behavior.

    One thing I have learned in the EU, Americans need to travel more and get to know other people from arround the world and not be so locked in their little boxes. What we do, what we say, and how we do it has huge implications for the world.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      The Europeans have reason to be worried. Their big advantage over the U.S. is that they have much more history than we do, and during all those many hundreds of years they’ve experienced it all–tyrannical kings, never-ending wars with their neighbors, genocide, dictatorships, religious expulsions. They value much more highly than we do their last 70 years of democratic rule and stability and economic prosperity. That’s why they are shying away from crackpot tyrants, as we’ve seen lately in France, and we’ll likely see in Germany shortly.

      Unfortunately, it’s very difficult to explain to people who’ve never experienced tyranny how terrible life can become. That’s why so many Americans can watch and read about the treasonous outrages we’re learning about, and stick with Trump. That’s why I’m afraid we have a long ways down to go before we come to our senses.

      Europeans are likely coming to realize how fortunate they were at the end of WWII that America approached the post-war period in a spirit of generosity and healing rather than retribution. We helped our former enemies, Germany and Japan, to rebuild, and we created peace-loving friends in the process. In return, Europe and Asia allowed us to use their countries as bases, and enabled the U.S. to become a world empire. Imagine if Trump had been in power then, and decided he was going to get even with Germany and Japan for the terrible suffering they caused. Make them pay, pay, pay. Ally America with Russia for world domination. Whew! What a disaster it would have been.

      No, America has been spoiled by its good fortune to have 240 years of stable democratic rule. We’ve been spoiled, and like spoiled children, will get our due, I’m afraid. The Europeans would be wise to build up their defenses and prepare to go it alone, until America eventually comes to its senses.

    • Gordon S Watson

      it would do those over-educated idiots – the ones you sat next to – to travel to the heartland of America … not be so locked in their little boxes of lib-tard-ism. Were they to get to know some real Americans, they’d find out why the Deplorables voted for PRESIDENT TRUMP. The video on YouTube with former President Carter says it all = a brilliant political science lesson in 7 minutes.

  • Greetings Emma G.!

    Much appreciate in knowing that: “rights and freedoms are not absolute in Canadian law,” as I had asked for clarity on this very thing. Maybe expatriation is an option to be considered? (Or is that also a Right not recognized in Canadian law?) In any case it is the nature of the governmental beast not to fully recognize the natural unalienable Rights of living Individuals. Could this be a perfect storm in the works – a crisis/opportunity through which real freedom can emerge for the Canadian people? I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that Michael is “the eye of this storm”.

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee


    “Over educated idiots”….that’s an oxymoron for sure.

    Both had traveled and studied in the USA and even the belly of the USA….Texas and the Midwest as well as Russia, EU South America and even Canada.

    Well balanced smart people from a country much like themselves. No getting around it… there is good reason for us and the rest of the civilized world to be concerned with our psychopath president. He has praised Duterte… the personal murderer of thousands.

    Trump is dangerous and we must act to have him removed…to preserve our national pride if nothing else. To preserve our farmers and protect everything good in America at the least….his budget says it all. He has no soul and zero heart. His cold dark soul is as black and dark as it gets.

    He is Greed Incarnate.

    He chants “Repeal & Replace”…. I say “Indict & Impeach!!!!!”

    • Gordon S Watson

      Mister McAffee – presuming to judge another human being i.e. … “he has no soul and zero heart”, while you’ve never met the man in person, is as arrogant as it gets. Contrast such epitome self-righteous-ness with your comments on this forum, on other days, blowing your own horn about how humble you are ‘loving all, serving all” … hilarious! once upon a time, your opinion mattered, but I gave up on you down the homestretch of the Election, when you floundered-around, the classic cartoon of the Ugly Ham-merican = a buffoon personifying Trump Derangement Syndrome..
      yet there is some good news =
      from the very top of the food chain : Melania Trump Issues FULL BAN On Monsanto Products From White House First lady learns of negative effects of GM corn. Apparently, she’s witnessed the improvements in her son’s health, after they quit eating GMO corn products. REAL MILK next ?


  • Gordon S Watson

    key word being = “un-alien-able”. A study of the Communist Manifesto, is required in order to get the measure of The Enemy. First plank of which, is : elimination of the right to private property. Prime Minister Diefenbaker saw what was coming, and so enshrined in the law of the Dominion = The Canadian Bill of Rights of 1960 Revised Statutes of Canada. Of course the Courts NEVER refer to it. Mention it to a member of the Cult of the Black Robe, and they’ll laugh in your face. Ab asuetis non fit injuria

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    Until we get a handle on the root of the problem… namely, our arrogant contempt for, and crude reductionist focus on, the microbial world… any effort on our part to evade illness and disease will be increasingly in vain.


    This threat of an injunction against raw milk consumers in Ontario demonstrates a huge disconnect from fundamental reality and the need for a radical overhaul of the existing regulatory framework.

    • Lynn_M

      The impending perfect storm of microbial resistance being created by bulk manufacturing plants in Hyderabad, India would be a much better target for activists than the so-called global warming crisis. We have a lot more to fear from the superbugs.

  • JHeckman

    Dr. Richard Schwartzman, D.O 2010 blog about this was spot on: “I contend no matter how much proof of safety is presented or what additional information is provided, the government authorities will never relent in their efforts to end sales of unpasteurized milk.”
    Read the rest of it here: http://orgonomist.blogspot.com/2010/02/government-vs-raw-milk_22.html

    • John Dutcher

      Thank You Dr. Heckman!!! That was a very good read and oh so true, My wife and I have had to endure the EP of our state’s dept. of Agriculture for some years now, of course the science behind “their” beliefs is the only “factual science”, just ask them, lol.
      I see Mary McGonigle-Martin also made her “usual” comments on that post too. Mary, living is not 100% safe either, I respect your position and opinions, but you are wasting your time trying to convince others what you believe. I have drank raw milk for many years of my life, I am 63 and quite healthy,and Mary will never convince me otherwise, point being, a contaminated anything could kill you if ingested, “Know the farmer that raises your food!!”
      Ken Conrad,
      I totally agree with you about the pharma companies greatly polluting our environment and causing endocrine system upsets not just for us humans, many other animals are affected also, all in the name of the almighty currency of the day/year/era,etc. Just as in these opioid addiction problems, not one single person has seemed to ask the correct question, why is the pharma industry manufacturing SO much of these opioid drugs? Because they are very aware of the millions, maybe billions of dollars in sales that go to the underground market,they probably make more profit off the black market than they do the legit market.The responsibility and the blame for this mess lies directly in the lap of the pharma companies and the federal regulators that are also very aware of this situation.

  • Gordon S Watson

    Mister Dutcher … glad the you appreciate Dr Schwartzmann’s take on the Campaign for REAL MILK at the url provided by DR Heckman. Notice the date of that essay = 2010. Dr Swartzmann published it after seeing my stuff on, The Bovine. Word Press back hen. … you’re about 7 years behind me in all this. But as we used to say on the picket-line outside the abortuaries : “It’s not that they WON’T come around, it’s that they’re slow to come around” … and if that’s too subtle for you, I mean: your understanding of what I have to say about raw milk being part of the heritage of the Israel-ite nation. Right now you’re stalled in the ‘mockery’ stage.

    • John Dutcher

      Mr. Watson,
      My comment had nothing to do with you, kindly control yourself, sir.

      • Gordon S Watson

        John Dutcher … not long ago you posted a gloat about having prompted a response from me, now you want me to “control me-self” ….’the double-minded man is unstable in all his ways”. I get the impression you’re too thin-skinned for the world of internet discussion.

        • John Dutcher

          I think you are a bit confused Gordon,I have no recall of “gloating” about anything on this website. Not thin skinned,you are very wrong there. I really could not care less what you think, as you seem to be quite unstable yourself an example being you making threats to Mark Mcaffey. Personally I think you might be in need of some counseling on controlling your anger.
          Also, I believe the Israelites are/were of the Jewish faith. Your quotes are senseless.

          • Gordon S Watson

            “threats” ? hardly. I promised to treat Mr MacAffee according to his own style. He loves to boast about how he goes out and greets all the “young moms’ in person, at grass roots level = The most powerful form of marketing. He’s the one who said those women constitute the driving force of his raw milk business : all true. but when the issue comes up about the nature of the baby within them … well, all of a sudden Mr McAffee goes all “cognitive dissonance” on us … from a trained, experienced paramedic that is unforgiveable. One has to try pretty hard to be that stupid. Where I loose civility is when he opines that “crack babies” are a life not worthy of life’…. the very term that the Nazis learned from Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Barren-hood. The absurdity is : PRESIDENT Trump de-funded Planned Barrenhood, yet McAffee keeps on hurling the epithet that Trump is a “Nazi”!!

            believe whatever you like, Mr Duther re …. “the Israelites are/were of the Jewish faith.” …. all that shows is how little you know on that topic

        • John Dutcher

          What your sreally shows is how much of a radical you are. I see very little difference between your reasoning and IS’ reasoning. Your “hatred” towards others is about as unhinged as Is claiming they are the “true” believers. The world would be a much better place if folks would just keep their religion to themselves and quit trying to convert others, as the Dalai Lama said fairly recently, the time for conversion has passed.Your radical religious ideals exposes the hatred in your heart. You claim to be Christian, but you certainly do not relflect that religion in your beliefs, very similar to IS twisting the Muslim religion to fit their ideals. You are a very,very angry person, a bit of yoga might help you relax a little bit,I really hope your life gets better for you Gordy.

          • Gordon S Watson

            thank you John Dutcher, for making my point so well. Jesus Christ said “by their fruits ye shall know them”. Take a good honest look at the conditions of the nations in bondage to the ancient anti-christ religions : they have no answer for one of the crucial questions of philosophy, ie “whence cometh evil?” Until one identifies The Enemy, then musters courage-enough to face the FACTS, this political (Campaign for REAL MILK ) is, like all the others = flailing-around, one foot nailed to the floor, for decades = just ‘children, calling out to each other on the schoolyard’,

            Holding up the Dalai Lama as some kind of authority … proveably! an assett of the Central Intelligence Agency … is ridiculous. : you personify why modern Ham-merica is in the trouble we’re in … comfortable in your stupidity – getting your jollies kibitzing / mocking the prophetic type [ moi ] who offers information which is dangerous to your self-image. See “Isaiah’s job” by Alfred J. Knock T’was ever thus

            what do I mean by the above? … those who want to heal America, must read the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Sion (sic), and ALL of it … then answer for yourself – ‘who has such profound understanding of humanity, so as to be predict that accurately over a century?’ In the Protocols, someone spells out an evil design as part of their declaration of war on white Christians. Since 1905 at the very latest, they have been installing it upon us. And I don’t mean “the Jews” – that’s a red herring. The Protocols spell-out their intent to hurt us every way possible = what has been done to our food supply … particularly, stealing the nutrition out of the milk as well as poisoning it … is not a mere accident … ‘unintended consequence of good intent’.

            “Radical” ? You got that part right.

        • John Dutcher

          You have now convinced me, you are insane. Goodnight Watson.

  • mark mcafee mark mcafee

    I just spent several hours touring a representative from the Australian dairy industry at OPDC. She had been awarded a rather large grant to study raw milk internationally and bring home recommendations for a Australian Raw Milk policy based on this research.

    When I read that the FDA will never change their position on raw milk….I immediately know the writer has taken a very near sighted view of a long term issue.

    As raw milk markets are built locally and nationally and the FDA is ignored as mostly background noise and mostly irrelevant….raw milk laws will change little by little and farmer by farmer and consumer by consumer. It takes time and “it takes die off of the old guard” at the FDA. A next generation of FDA regulators, a win in the courts and an every weakening pasteurized milk market will bring change. We are just a couple of years away from an APP for a smart phone that will quickly, cheaply and accurately count bacteria and detect and differentiate pathogens. This will bring safety to a very high level of certainty. Add the additional research on raw milk benefits and high value added for high quality raw milk! and look around and change will be here!! It is already happening. All the while… the guarantees of pasteurized milk food safety shows its flaws and illness and deaths continue to happen.

    Roundup used to be super safe ( at least that is how it was sold to farmers )…now it is being associated with cancers and etc. The old guard is dying off and it is being replaced by realty and cold hard facts that do not hide or lie. Consumers are becoming so much smarter and do not eat the same old crap that the FDA used to feed us. For better or worse….the FDA is being defunded by our midnight-twittering president. All signs of change. Adapt or die off.

  • Gordon S Watson

    “For better or worse….the FDA is being defunded …..” …. this!, after less than half a year at the helm. Astonishing!! Mark McAffee comes to his senses enough – at least – to muster grudging respect. Defunding Planned Barren-hood PRESIDENT Trump’s major accomplishment, so far. Get ready for a lot more along that same line.

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    FDA defunding. Yes….just for the spite of it and…. we still have state regs, insurance standards, consumer trust, brand reputation, and good ol Bill Marler ( you make someone sick and you pay dearly ) Take away the FDA and there are many layers of formal and indirect regulation that assures safety.

    Defunding planned parenthood….that’s just plain crazy. Sorry Gordi….planned parent is so much more than birth control. Planned parenthood privides care for all sorts of female medical needs.

    I find it really interesting, that hard core conservatives want to ban abortion, but in the same breath those same conservatives strip the budget for any sort of care or feeding of that child and its mother when it is born. When is life important….when it is hungry or even starving at school and is malnutrished and unloved ….treated like trash by conservatives that want to incarcerate just those kids and teenagers and soon to be society’s throw always?

    Or when it is a lump of tissue and the mom does not want it…?

    I am sorry…. but a woman has the whole and sole right to manage her body. Society has no right to say anything about what she does privately. This is something that goes back hundreds if not thousands of years. Do your homework on this. Denial of a womans right to choose to be pregnant is a new thing not an old thing.

    Maybe conservatives should provide for the living kids and mothers before they start asserting themselves over the unborn.

    • Gordon S Watson

      For someone who was a paramedic to mouth the same old trite arguments ( which are disproved daily, by anyone who gets the FACTS re: artificial abortion ) proves what an ignoramus Mark McAffee is on this topic. In FACT, every year, Planned Barren-hood dismembers 900,000 + living babies. And gets payed for doing so out of the public accounts. The national cognitive dissonance continues because they cowardly slink away from taking in the video record of Planned Parent hood executives cackling-away about their gruesome business.

      At the Nuremberg trials of the major war criminals, institutions of the Third Reich were also found guilty of crimes against humanity. Joseph Mengele, for one, who continued making his living as an abortionist, in Argentina, long after the Nazis had decamped from Germany. Defunding Planned Barrenhood, America is returning to her senses : as the pendulum swings, we shall see the enablers of the holo-caust against the unborn, the ghouls who run the body parts industry … come to the same end.

      “therapeutic abortion” ? pay for your own God damned abortion

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

      Attempting to dehumanize the unborn child by describing it as a “lump of tissue” is the height of foolishness.

      Most abortions take place between the eighth and eleventh week of the pregnancy… are you aware that the human heart begins to beat at around 18 to 21 days after fertilization; that there are brain waves at six weeks; or that at eight weeks all body systems are present, including little fingers and toes?

      Abortion is the taking of a human life… and a gruesome painful one at that, which explains why some doctors administer anesthesia to the child in the womb prior to an abortion. I am not one to deny another the freedom to choose. What really irks me however is that the state expects all taxpayers to pay for such an horrific act through outfits such as Planned Parenthood.

      That so called “lump of tissue’ inside a mother’s womb is in fact a unique human being/person. Where we go wrong as human beings is summed up very well by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes… we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions”.

      The defense of the unborn is the ultimate human rights issue.

      • Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

        Where is the prosecution for buying stolen property?
        Where is the prosecution for possession of stolen property?

        And by that I mean the baby brains, the baby internal organs and whatever else is transacted.

        Those that kill those lives and then part out the corpses have no right of ownership.
        The lives are stolen by killing (horrifically, if that matters) and then the bodies, whole or partitioned, are put into the market.

        The woman has no right of ownership either.
        The woman has responsibilities, but not ownership.

        “…We are blessed in the 21st century with crystal-clear photographs and action films of the living realities within their pregnant mothers. No one with the slightest measure of integrity or honor could fail to know what these marvelous beings manifestly, clearly, and obviously are, as they smile and wave into the world outside the womb.

        In simplest terms, they are human beings with an inalienable right to live, a right that the Speaker of the House of Representatives (Pelosi -JIO) is bound to defend at all costs for the most basic of ethical reasons. They are not parts of their mothers, and what they are depends not at all upon the opinions of theologians of any faith. Anyone who dares to defend that they may be legitimately killed because another human being “chooses” to do so or for any other equally ridiculous reason should not be providing leadership in a civilized democracy worthy of the name.

        Edward Cardinal Egan
        Archbishop of New York

        August 26, 2008”

        For today, 6/5/17, for the United States, we are at 1,848 abortions, and counting.

        Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

    • blesse'd are the cheese makers

      I stay off of this for awhile, only to come back and see that McAfee continues to spew the talking points of the progressives without any factual backup whatsoever. Reminds me of that unhinged Kathy Griffin — the only ones listening to her (and McAfee) are the folks who reside in their shrinking-by-the-day group who live in their own echo chamber . . .

      Planned Parenthood for instance. The majority of Planned Parenthood’s income comes from abortion related services plain and simple. When they lump handing out a brochure as a service provided along with performing an abortion procedure, one can quickly ascertain where PP’s skewed and misleading numbers come from. But . . . finding that out requires fact checking.

      Woman’s alleged “whole and sole right to manage her body.” What a crock. Does the life of the innocent unborn child have a voice? No. Does the life of the innocent unborn child have a vote? No. At what point between 0 and 9 months does the child have a “right”? If that “right” falls anywhere on the continuum between 0 and 9 months, McAfee loses the argument. But . . . he already lost the argument. Don Quixote shaking his sword at a windmill once again . . .

      I’m afraid that McAfee lives in “Liberal Talking-Points Ville.” Nothing new to see with his twisting in the wind.

      Find some new talking points, Mark. The cow shit on your boots is too deep and smells the same as always . . .

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      My experience is that abortion isn’t a great subject to debate on social media (or anywhere else). People are totally set in their positions, and often the positions are based on religious beliefs, which means they are rock solid. It’s also a highly emotional subject, which helps explain that it still becomes a political football more than 40 years after Roe v Wade supposedly settled the matter.

      Part of the problem we face today is that fewer and fewer people remember what life was like before Roe v Wade. I’m old enough to recall enough to say that it was pretty awful for women who determined, for whatever reason, that they needed an abortion. As with any service or product that is forbidden, a black market develops. It’s one thing to have black market raw milk or drugs. Quite another to have black market surgery. Lots of women died or were maimed by charlatans doing surgery in back alleys using clothes hangars. Hard to imagine our society wanting to go back to those days, but then we as a society are choosing to go backwards in all kinds of crazy ways, so who knows.

      It is interesting to note that the most emotional opponents seem to be men. I know there are women who oppose abortion, but like here, men seem most outspoken. I love when men decided what rights are best for women to possess or not possess.

      • Gordon Watson

        ” …. that they needed an abortion” ? But, but , but Mister Gumpert! what we heard for all those 40 years, was = ‘that they chose to end their pregnancy’.

        Back about 2000, I paid a completely independent group to search the medical literature for all mentions of studies to do with “therapeutic’ artificial abortion. In the entire literature, they came up with 6. Of those, 2 had to do with severe morning sickness, for which the conclusion was that certain drugs were more effective than abortion. The others were strictly psychological. And that doesn’t even begin to deal with the time-frame for assessing whether a given procedure was “therapeutic”. Meaning ; it takes years for women to admit they were wrong.

        no, we as a society are not “choosing to go backwards”. Just the opposite… the white race is coming to its common sense … realizing that we have sinned against our God by destroying the gifts – our children – He gives us. Bernard Nathanson, who pioneered abortion on demand in New York back then, stopped performing abortions because his intellect convinced him the baby in the womb can be nothing other than a human being. He did not have a religious epiphany.

        From my decade’s experience on the front lines of it, men who are so vociferous taking the femi-Nazi side, have an abortion in their own past, of which they are ashamed. They’re frantic in their denial … to the extent that they make laws putting people in gaol for telling the Truth : example gratia, Mark McAffee’s heroes, the Clintons, and the FACE Act … outlawing free speech.

        “elective surgery” ? pay for your own God damned abortion

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad


      You state, “I am sorry…. but a woman has the whole and sole right to manage her body”.

      Indeed in “managing her body” do you not believe she deserves to know the implications with respect to doing so?

      You won’t see this story covered by the mainstream media. Indeed, it’s avoidance of stories such as this speaks volumes.

  • John Dutcher

    Your an amazing man Gordy.

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    “Isn’t it beyond the height of ignorance and irony that in Canada, Queen Elizabeth could not be served something she is accustomed to in her homeland without breaking our unfair and ridiculous raw milk laws?”


  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    Ken and others.

    Let me be clear….the thought and the act of abortion is something I would not chose in my life. I detest the act.
    However, the question is whether any one other than the woman herself has the right to determine her choices for her body.

    She had the sex….she has the right to determine if she will give birth or not. When was the last time a man had sex and then became pregnant. I am pretty sure this is very very uncommon.

    I would not chose abortion…. but I also have practiced very responsible birth control and teaching of birth control to those in my care to avoid the issue entirely.

    None of you ever responded to my question about why conservatives completely gut and defund child food programs for kids and mothers? Yet they want every child born. How about you conservatives pay for all the costs to feed, cloth, care for and educate all of those kids you want to add to society!! Conservatives speak out of both sides of their mouths. Many of those fetuses are born to drug addicted irresponsible people that are making the best decision possible. My wife ( she was an L & D RN for 23 years ) would cry when she delivered a baby to a crack mom. It was destined for a life of hell.

    Unborn life is precious…. only when love, education,food and care are present after birth. If not…. it is a pure hell and makes life worse on earth for the baby and society as a whole. If life is so precious… then why is it that Your Presidents budget makes no space for all your unwanted babies and their moms. If life was precious to you… in the same breath you hate abortion, you would also strongly advocate for big budgets for food and care for families and moms. But…You don’t.

    • Gordon S Watson

      I could go on, at great length, and rebut this most recent addle-brained rant, same, as I did for about a decade, face-to-face with the studied ignoramuses, on the street, and from the Prisoner’s box in Her Majesty’s courts, not to mention my 15 minutes of notoriety in the lame-stream media. I don’t regret all that. But : comes a time to abide-by the Biblical admonition “answer a fool not in his folly”. Mark McAffee’s cognitive dissonance is the classic example of why Americans can stand by as the next generation is liquidated before our eyes. His sanctimonious claptrap … parroting the denial of the pro-abort propaganda … insulates them from actually LISTENing to what we ” conservatives” I guess, (or “deplorables” as his heroine sneered) are saying. IN FACT, literally on the very next lot beside the Everywoman’s abortuary in Vancouver BC, was Gianna House = offering women the alternative to killing the child by artificial abortion. As Mark McAffee – one trained in medicine!!!!!! – hides out in the fakery of the abortionists = printing “fetus” when – as Judge Cronin once put it on the Bench “every one knows it’s a baby” – he reveals his-self as a calculated, persistent idiot on this topic : any and every thing else he has to say, is worthless.

      like I say, John Dutcher : you’re locked into the ‘mockery phase”. The killing of baby by an artificial abortion is damned by God = you could look it up. First of all, the name of the God of the Caucasians, us, Israel-ites, white people, is Jesus Christ. If you don’t realize the difference between the generic happy-face, feel-good ‘god’ of Churchianity, who – we’re told “Loves everyone” – contrasted with the God of Israel, then more’s the pity for you, come Judgment Day. We serve a righteous God, and His vengeance will not sleep forever.

    • Gordon S Watson

      tell you what, Mark McAffee … you’ll recall the slogan from the 60’s = “Bring the War home”. I had been planning to come down to Kernan California, and tour your facility. But – considering the insanity you’ve voiced on this forum for the last 1/2 year, as you descended into madness – I’m changing my itinerary : I’ll be there, alright, but stay outside the gate just on the public part of the roadside. I’m a bit rusty at the Pro-Life thing, but this old warhorse has had my fill of your insults. An anti-abortion witness will be just what the doctor ordered. I bet that the majority of individuals who – were, past tense – customers of Organic Pastures products, will seriously re-consider whether they want to do business with someone who condones the murder of children by abortion. I probably don’t have to tell you that most of your neighbours are “conservatives” who agree with me. Not to mention the Mexicans who labor on your place … wonderful Pro-Life people, without exception. Let’s see how happy they are when they realize you’re an apologist for the God damned local abortion-monger.

      Over 20 years, you were brilliant at building a brand, in large part by listening to what people had to say. Apparently, though, when it comes to the most vital political issue of this generation you quit listening, quit growing, a lifetime ago.

      Pro-Lifers changed the minds of millions of people – and we vote!. Donald Trump became PRESIDENT because he listened to the mood of America. You want to dish the dirt = puking out the pro-abort propaganda from half a century ago? Let’s see if you’re man enough to actually stop your stupid motormouth then muster the humility to address the FACTS when they’re presented in all the bloody detail at your own doorstep

  • John Dutcher

    Lordy,lordy, Gordy,Gordy

  • John Dutcher

    You should not use the Lord’s name in vain Gordy!!!

  • Emma G.

    Returning to the issue of raw milk (please?), can we discuss how we can all best support our Ontario friends?

    Unfortunately, I expect the injunction will be issued, but hopefully it will be modified to exclude consumers and to change that criminal contempt charge to a civil one. They intend to take this to a constitutional challenge on appeal, and this is where I feel they have a chance of success, if they can provide evidence to prove that the current law is overbroad given that using raw milk “best practices” (e.g. bacteria testing, farmers trained in methods of preventing contamination, and having on-farm food safety (OFFS) plans and biosecurity plans), raw milk can be produced consistently pathogen free.

    Did you see that article posted where Dr. Mansel Griffiths of the U of Guelph is quoted as saying that 4% of raw milk contains pathogens? That’s the “science” that government bases policy on. Griffiths also provided the “expert testimony” for the “Jongerden vs. Her Majesty the Queen” constitutional challenge, to support the B.C. government’s position that raw milk is a health hazard.

    But, there needs to be a two-pronged approach – besides the court, they also need to organize an “Ontario Raw Milk Association” or something similar, to start to lobby for a change in the law, because no such lobbying has taken place yet. The first step is to organize.

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      That “science” is crap science. I’ve seen those studies and what Dr. Griffiths and other anti-raw-milk demagogues won’t say is that those studies are based on milk intended for processing. Because farmers know the milk will be zapped, they don’t give it the same attention that raw milk farmers give their milk. If 4% of milk intended to be served raw contained pathogens, we’d see untenable rates of illness among raw milk consumers.

      • Emma G.

        Yes, David, I agree. But we don’t yet have peer-reviewed studies that provide evidence of the difference between milk produced for processing and milk produced for direct consumption as far as pathogen counts. We need these studies to be done and published.

        We also need studies proving that if legalization takes place, outbreak rates won’t increase. That is their big fear about legalization, and what is all over the CDC website. We need to dispel this myth with solid evidence.

        And many dairy farmers are selling “milk intended for processing.” I.e. this report: “The mooshiner I met estimates that the majority of dairy farmers in Ontario – as many as 80% – engage in illegal ‘back door sales’ of raw milk..” – http://deanoftea.blogspot.ca/2014/02/entering-raw-milk-underground.html . And farms in WI and other states which allow “incidental sales”? So, we likely see much “milk intended for processing” being distributed straight to the public.

      • Emma G.

        To clarify, I’m not saying that these studies need to be done because I don’t believe that raw milk can be safely produced or that the two types of raw milk are different. I do. But at least one provincial government (B.C.) wants to first see “peer-reviewed academic evidence” before it will legalize raw milk:

        “Staff in the Ministry of Health then stated in subsequent talks that the Ministry’s conditions for legalization are … We must provide them with peer-reviewed academic evidence that legalization will not lead to increased numbers of outbreaks…” – http://bcherdshare.org/draft-regulation

        And raw milk science played a huge part in why Michael Schmidt lost in court in 2014 in Ontario. Here are two excerpts from the judges’ decision (http://canlii.ca/t/g6456):

        “[4]…The appeal judge went on to consider the Charter arguments and concluded that there was no violation of the interests protected by s. 7 and that, given the preponderance of scientific evidence as to the risk to public health posed by unpasteurized milk, the impugned legislation did not violate the principles of fundamental justice on the ground that it was arbitrary or overbroad.”

        “[46] A law is arbitrary where there is ‘no connection to its objective’ (emphasis in original): Bedford v. Canada, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), at para 111. A law is overbroad ‘where there is no rational connection between the purposes of the law and some, but not all, of its impacts’ (emphasis in original): Bedford, at para 112. The scientific evidence that I have already mentioned easily reaches the standard of ‘sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act’: Cochrane v. Ontario (A.G.), 2008 ONCA 718 (CanLII), at para. 29, leave to appeal refused [2009] SCCA No. 105; R. v. Malmo-Levine at para. 133. The law does not offend the overbreadth principle by targeting all unpasteurized milk. There is no evidence to suggest that the legislature could somehow narrow the reach of the legislation and still achieve it purpose of protecting public health.”

        So, peer-reviewed scientific evidence is vital if we are going to legalize raw milk in Canada.

    • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

      Where are the outbreaks Emma, how much more proof is needed?


      As is being done to those responsible for “peer reviewed” studies discrediting vaccines, they will do likewise to those who are responsible for studies that are generated in support of raw milk consumption; ignore and/or attempt to discredit whatever and whomever. What’s happening in Canada to raw milk producers and consumers is not about food safety…it’s about control of the dairy industry via B.S. legalistic politics.

      That being said these so-called food born outbreaks will continue to increase with all foods, irrespective and despite efforts to maintain cleanliness if we persist with belligerent practices that disrupt our symbiotic relationship with microbes and continue to disrupt immune systems with the relentless use of toxic invasive drugs and chemicals.


      “The failure was a result of an electrical switch failure. A sodium thiosulfate pump that dechlorinates the city water fed to the tanks shut off when the switch failed. There was a backup pump, but it was connected to the same switch. There was no alarm or monitoring system in place.”

      And it is perfectly fine for humans to drink the water???

      • Emma G.

        Ken: “Where are the outbreaks Emma, how much more proof is needed?”.

        Where would you like outbreak figures from: The U.S.? Ontario? Europe? And remember that two peer-reviewed articles have been published claiming that outbreaks are being under-reported – see https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/23/6/15-1603_article and https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/20/1/pdfs/12-0920.pdf. Are you volunteering to write a rebuttal? If we disagree with their conclusions then we need to refute them, not just let them stand unchallenged. Send your rebuttal to the journal Emerging Infectious Diseases, first. If they refuse to publish, then we can likely find others.

        How much more proof is needed, you ask? As we appear to be starting with zero, the answer is “any and all.” This proof must come from peer-reviewed journals. If you can find articles in such journals that provide scientific evidence that outbreaks won’t increase with legalization, Ken, then please supply, because that’s what they want from us.

        • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

          I have zero faith in the CDC.s ability to be objective and non-partisan. As Robert F. Kennedy accurately stated, “ the CDC is a cesspool of corruption.

          Although the peer review process is referred to as “one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice”; peers however are not without bias and that is to be expected. They are human beings dealing with the same vices as anyone else. If scientists, doctors and politicians are to have any credibility they aught to respect freedom of thought and choice, welcome constructive criticism and not use the peer review process as a tool to manipulate science and oppress and marginalize individuals for the sake of money and power…and that is exactly what’s occurring with respect to the raw milk movement.

          Personal experience and the fact that raw milk has been consumed for millennia is all the proof that I need.

          • Emma G.

            I agree with you about the CDC being biased – it’s a political body, imho. But government bases policy on what the CDC publishes, and they will discount our personal experiences as being “anecdote” and “placebo effect.” If we who live in jurisdictions which enforce prohibition want raw milk laws to change, we must provide our governments with peer-reviewed evidence of safety, not personal experience, because they won’t listen to it.


            – Hundreds if not thousands of letters have been written by Canadian citizens to their federal and provincial governments to ask for raw milk legalization, citing personal experience, and all have been ignored.

            – In the U.S., twelve states have recently (Dec 2016 onward) considered legislation to either legalize or expand access to raw milk (thank you, Gordon, for sending me the links). Many letters and hours of personal testimony were given to state governments this year to try to get laws changed. It looks like nine bills have failed so far. One (in RI) has been held “for further study, and two (TX and NJ) still may have a small chance of getting somewhere.. The BIG stumbling block is the public health/food safety community pronouncing their “expert” opinion that legalization/expanded-access will result in more outbreaks.

            The lack of published science to support our side is what is impeding our efforts to get laws changed.

  • Emma G.

    Save this link in case the injunction is issued: http://www.gofundme.com/foodrights . They will need to raise funds for a Constitutional challenge.

  • Mark Mcafee Mark Mcafee

    David, if 4% of CA legal raw milk producers tests had pathogens…CDFA would have shut down CA raw milk years ago and 650 retail stores would not being be selling it every day. The tolerance level for human consumption raw milk pathogens is zero. It is really quite blind to make claims about pathogens when CA had clearly demonstrated that raw milk is a safe product. I think psychology calls this politically expedient denial or avoidance of uncomfortable facts

    You are right….this is biased garbage testimony and garbage science not to mention a blind scientist that denies data that is bought and paid for.

    Once again…. the safety and quality of raw milk is not constant. It directly reflects the conditions, care and testing programs used by the producer. That’s why raw milk for human consumption costs so much more!! And pasteurized milk is dirt cheap. They are quantumly different!!

    Gordi, when you come visit and stand outside our gate, you will see a sign that says… we welcome all and serve all, you will be welcomed and provided care and love like all other people that come visit. Your passion and concern for life are respected and you are entitled to these deeply held deeply rooted morals. I respect them and I make space for them in our lives. Compassion conquers all.

  • Gordon S Watson

    when Michael Schmidt came out to visit us in BC, in 2010, he told us about his experience with Clayton Ruby … one of Canada’s top lawyers. The raw milk community in Ontario, and all over Canada) had come up with $150,000, to support him in. At that point in time, Mr Ruby anticipated the issue going all the way to the Supreme Court de Canada, for a Constitutional Challenge. Michael handed Mr Ruby $100,000 of that $$. The rest got used-up in expenses of raising that war chest. But – as lawyers so often do – Mr Ruby basically did nothing at all, as the matter ground on. Eventually, Michael Schmidt fired Clayton Ruby and acted for himself. This was all a long time ago, at the original hearing in the Provincial Court. . First order of business, was : having his property returned which had been IL-legally seized in the first raid on the farm. Mr Ruby never did give back the $100,000.

    as much as I loathe and despise the lawyering racket, I must say that, out of the 100-or-so members of that Guild whom I”ve met over 3 decades, there were a few who were decent human beings as well as a competent lawyer.

    There is a time and place for hiring a lawyer. But in that game, “you have to pay to play”. The amounts of money which are demanded, are inconceivable to ordinary people. Chief Justice McEachern of BC said “Justice beyond your pocketbook is Justice beyond your reach”. Point being = the government has the deepest pockets of all. As well, the bureaucracies are masters at the technique of ‘delay delay delay’. A friend of mine who was in the courtroom reported that the Crown Counsel said in his closing remarks “no one would convict a man as charming as Michael Schmidt”. Doesn’t matter. From what I see – 3000 miles removed from ‘the scene of the crime’, they’re going to crucify the co-operators with the letter of the law.

    this ain’t about “health” … it never was. It’s about exertion of power for the sheer perverse thrill of it. Which is why I keep harping that most of the individual dairymen caught in the coils of the viper, have yet to grasp the nature of the Enemy. That essay by Wilhelm Reich’s protoge Dr Schwartzman ( linked here a couple of days ago) is an excellent treatment of the character dis-order root cause : on this planet, it’s Life against Death.

    I too, am sick and tired of flogging that topic = of babies being murdered for the convenience of the mothers … and, more often, the fathers. I retaliate ONLY after the resident Trump-basher obsessively lobs it in as a non-sequitur with his comments on the main theme ie. the politics of REAL MILK. How very ironic, eh? Him boasting ‘how concerned he is, to ensure children get REAL MILK to build strong bones, and perfect teeth’, even while out of the other side of his mouth = denying other children the very most basic right = to life. Those ‘young moms’ seek out raw milk when then read the work of Weston A Price, who explained how the teeth and bones of the face are formed IN THE WOMB. Those young moms – walking up to Mr McAffee as he does his thing at farmers’ markets – pregnant, are crucial in the marketing demographic of Organic Pastures Dairy. They aren’t going to be nearly so friendly after they find out his personal policy on abortion … that the baby inside them, whom they already have an ultrasound of, and whom they’ve already named, is “just a blob of undifferentiated tissue” as far as he knows. I had Mark McAffee pegged as someone of above-average intelligence … his stupidity re artificial abortion proved me wrong.

  • Ken Conrad Ken Conrad

    What the NY Times Doesn’t Want You to Know About My New Book

    “Despite outselling all other adult nonfiction in its first week, The New York Times didn’t even include “Fat for Fuel” in its top 15, saying the book was disqualified for excessive sales through Amazon.
    “Fat for Fuel” was reviewed and edited by more than two dozen health experts, scientists and researchers, making it one of the few peer-reviewed books on health on the market.”

    • David Gumpert David Gumpert

      I don’t know the particulars of Mercola’s book, but I believe that NYTimes, and other media, have pushed back against authors who intentionally organize purchases of their books….for the express purpose of getting the book listed as a “best seller.” What happens is that authors send out mass email requests telling people to buy the author’s latest book on a certain date. The idea is to combine purchases so the author gets listed as a best seller for at least one week. Then, the author can say, for the rest of his life, that he’s “a NYTimes best-selling author.” It’s a version of gaming the system.

  • Raoul Bedi

    Howdy folks : Well on the topic of lawyer fees . Here is what i observed last week. 5 opposing-side lawyers (representing York Region and the Milk Act, Director Gavin Downing ) in Superior court in Newmarket,Ontario for 4 days of hearings. So that is about 8 hours per day at $300 per hour. So 8*5*4*300/hour = $48 000 PLUS court costs . And that series of hearings is only one small piece. If this case (really injunction) gets appealed there could another 1-5 days of hearings. One can see where this is going. It is called “Justice by Bankruptcy”. The Crown seeks to finally solve the raw milk ‘problem” in Ontario , if not Canada, once and for all by bankrupting the defendants,farmers, agisters, and co-operatives involved .
    I realize that for our American friends $48 000, in legal expenses, is still relatively little but in Canada that is already hefty for a non-profit co-operative. Fortunately , there are GOFUNDME sites now available that pitch in and help . And people , North and South , of the border do really help out a lot with the legal expenses.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>