I know a lot of people here don’t much care for Food Safety News, feeling that it is biased in many respects, particularly against raw dairy, but I’ve just had an uplifting experience with the publication, and its publisher, Bill Marler.
He encouraged me recently to write about the uneven food safety enforcement activities of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration between large and smaller food producers, in particular, how the big boys are treated with kid gloves and the smaller producers hit over the head. I decided to take him up on his idea, and focused on the grand jury investigation currently under way in Michigan against Richard Hebron, a Michigan farmer, and David Hochstetler, an Indiana raw dairy farmer.
My article describes the current grand jury investigation–in particular, the documents being sought by the grand jury, the potentially serious penalties facing the farmers, and the testy communication between parties in the case. I also provide an account of the circumstances that led up to the grand jury proceedings, much of which I’ve written about on this blog in recent years. The events include Richard Hebron’s encounter with Michigan authorities in 2006, the FDA’s targeting of Hebron and Hochstetler as revealed in emails in 2009, the association of Hochstetler’s dairy with a campylobacter outbreak in the Midwest in 2010, and negotiations between the FDA and Hochstetler following the outbreak.
I decided it was important to write the article for FSN because many of its readers are government regulators,maybe even some high-ranking decision makers, who may not be fully aware of the aggressive campaign against small producers of nutrient-dense food, especially in the raw dairy arena. I have to believe that many of them are fair-minded decent individuals whose sense of fair play should rebel against what’s happening to Hebron and Hochstetler, among others, right now. (Then again, I may well be naive, and they mostly know, and accept, the current scorched-earth policy against small raw dairy producers.)
I also think it’s important to try to air the different perceptions of the legal challenges affecting small food producers. As I’ve said before, there is a dearth of legal precedent affecting food rights. At the same time, there is impatience with the ability of lawyers, most notably the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, to gain as much legal traction in this arena as people would like.
On that score, there is a reference in my FSN article to negotiations that occurred between the FDA, and the FTCLDF, representing Hochstetler, early last year–in the wake of an outbreak of 25 campylobacter illnesses attributed by public health authorities to his dairy. It was an episode I had some knowledge about, but not enough to feel comfortable writing about, partly because I didn’t feel I understood the full story, and partly because I didn’t want to possibly upset a sensitive legal situation that hadn’t concluded.
The disclosure about the grand jury investigation changed all that, essentially confirming that any negotiating was over, and that the FDA had decided to pursue aggressive legal action against the two farmers. When I spoke with Hochstetler on Monday, he clarified the situation, from his perspective, and you can see from the FSN article that he was close to acceding to FDA demands that he abandon the many hundreds of food club members he serves, and confining his milk distribution to Indiana…and that he was being encouraged to do so by the FTCLDF.
Why did he finally decide against an agreement with the FDA? He says it was because the FDA wouldn’t agree to a complete amnesty from prosecution over possible past transgressions. He also suggests he felt a contractual obligation to his food club members in Illinois and Michigan.
That last point may be key. According to Aajonus Vonderplanitz, the head of Right to Choose Healthy Food, which oversees Hochstetler’s food clubs, there was more than a sense of contractual obligation. He says that at the time of the negotiation, he let Hochstetler know he couldn’t just walk away from his food club members. “I told him that since he was under contract, that if he stopped producing milk from our cows, RTCHF would collect the cows and board them elsewhere until the contract ended,” says Vonderplanitz. So Hochstetler walked away from the FDA, instead, to fulfill his contractual obligations, Vonderplanitz suggests.
This is a very important point because part of the regulator legal argument against food club memberships and lease contracts, as well as herdshares, is that they are sham agreements, designed to circumvent government restrictions on raw dairy. Judges have sided with this view. The fact that Vonderplanitz was prepared to take legal action to enforce a leasing arrangement potentially adds important weight to the legitimacy of such arrangements.
One other thing: The Hochstetler and Hebron situation is a vivid illustration of what the Raw Milk Freedom Riders are all about. The group is seeking to ease or eliminate the federal ban on interstate milk shipments, especially those related to private contractual arrangements of the sort Hochstetler and Hebron are engaged in. And another reason to attend its second event in Chicago December 8. That is the same day, by the way, when Hochstetler and Hebron may well be appearing before a federal grand jury in Detroit.
***
I’d like to make reference to the complaint lodged by a Maine Congresswoman to the FDA, which Deborah Evans linked to following my previous post. In the letter. Rep. Chellie Pingree takes the FDA to task over its raids on raw milk dairies and its “overly zealous enforcement” of the ban on insterstate sale of raw milk. She complains as well about the use of “scare resources” on the FDA raids and undercover activities. It’s the first time I’m aware of that a member of the U.S. Congress has specifically complained to the FDA about its war on raw dairy.
***
Talk about adding insult to injury. There’s news from the Canadian Constitution Foundation that Ontario Dairy Farmer Michael Schmidt was assessed a “victim surcharge” of $1,945 on top of his original fine of $9,150 for violating Canada’s dairy laws. That’s got to hurt, especially when 135 people had written or provided statements to the effect that Schmidt’s raw milk helped them, and no “victims” ever came forward.
David
Doesn't matter if it's a herdshare or a contract with RTCHF, once the farmer signs the contract he's no longer the owner of the cows, and the herdshare members or RTCHF – whether they're owners or lessees – have the right to take the cows until the end of the contract.
To argue otherwise would admit that these herdshares are a sham.
**********
I can sympathize with Hochstetler. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place – take on the FDA, or take on Vonderplanitz? Do you know what I would do if I were him? I'd call Vonderplanitz's bluff. Vonderplanitz lives in California, right? Tell him to come and take his cows. Vonderplanitz, come fly to Indiana, find a cattle trailer or two, find another farm willing to board the cows under FDA scrutiny (what farmer would do this?), arrange to have them milked by someone not familiar with handling raw milk for human consumption (err, outbreak *cough*), and arrange to have it delivered to members across state lines with the FDA watching (oh, and you'll have to buy some hay in there somewhere, too, cows need to eat). And I'd tell Vonderplanitz in the next breath that I'm going to march myself down to the local FDA branch office and hand any and all paperwork over to them regarding his contracts, members and organization, and that I'd be willing to make a statement about RTCHF if amnesty is granted to me. If Vonderplanitz wants to play hardball, let him play.
"You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, know when to run." Kenny Rogers
"Consumer Reports magazine ran an independent investigation of fruit juices, and it said 10 percent of the juices tested exceeded the FDA's allowable limit of arsenic for drinking water."
Appears Dr. Oz was correct and the govt is NOT looking out for the masses….
Flim Flamm, I cannot envision any govt person performing farm chores.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
I definitely wouldn't want to do a deal with you. You're cheering the judge in WI for suggesting that the herdshare arrangements are a sham. Then, when Vonderplanitz goes to demonstrate that his leasing arrangements are the real deal, you're all over him, ready to break the contract.
He negotiates these deals with farmers as private contractual arrangements, outside the scope of interstate commerce or regulator authority. Everyone understands the rules. The farmers give up the government "protection" and the consumer members join a club and pay dues to ensure a steady supply of food. The essence of contractual arrangements. Then the FDA comes along and says that in its infinite wisdom, it doesn't recognize your private contract.
Now, this is my take: If you're an ethical and respectable business person, you need to tell the FDA you have a contractual obligation, you honor your contractual obligations, and if it wishes to challenge that, you will see them in court. Not start whimpering like a baby and going back to the food club members and saying, screw our contract, you're on your own for food, and see if you can force me to honor my contract. Forget this leasing contract, I've decided to let the FDA put me out of business.
And by the way, the FDA had already said no immunity from prosecution.
David
"You're cheering the judge in WI for suggesting that the herdshare arrangements are a sham."
You need to stop putting words in my mouth, I did no such thing. What I did was examine the existing law in the state of Wisconsin and agree with the decision the judge made based on that law and my own experience with it. I didn't say I liked it, I said it was correct. No cheerleading, only rational, logical commentary.
"He negotiates these deals with farmers as private contractual arrangements, outside the scope of interstate commerce or regulator authority."
Right To Choose Healthy Foods is a trust association, which is a type of corporation. Again for the umteenth time, corporations are not "private", they are creations of the state and do not have the same rights as individuals. Vonderplanitz is engaging in multi-state commerce, putting RTCHF squarely under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
"Then the FDA comes along and says that in its infinite wisdom, it doesn't recognize your private contract."
Does a private contractual obligation superseed government jurisdiction? Because of their incorporation, RTCHF has a contract with the state, and if they're operating in several states, with the federal government. Do Vonderplanitz's contracts with farmers superseed his contract with the government? Plus, I think it was you David who reminded me that our judicial system has intruded on and broken up "private contracts" in the past.
"… and if it wishes to challenge that, you will see them in court."
Hasn't FTCLDF, Hochstetler's legal counsel, already suggested he conceed to the FDA's wishes regarding his interstate milk sales? If he chooses to ignore this advice, and challenge Vonderplanitz in court, who will be his legal counsel and how will this bill be paid? I don't believe FTCLDF will continue to be his counsel if he chooses to forgo their advice and challenge Vonderplanitz instead.
"…and going back to the food club members and saying, screw our contract, you're on your own for food…"
Not food, MILK. Just milk. I guarantee no one will starve without milk, I guarantee you can get all of your vitamins and nutrients and probiotics from other foods besides milk, and I guarantee other farmers are producing food, if not milk. Last I heard, stores like Whole Foods sell food, too.
Why is it conscionable to ask a farmer to endure years of federal persecution when it's only to satisfy a perceived need? What responsibility do the RTCHF members have? Why is the farmer being asked to shoulder all of the burden himself, alone? I wouldn't be surprised if more farmers turn their backs on this movement, out of disgust if nothing else.
I take back what I said about not wanting to do a deal with you. You wouldn't have done a deal with Right to Choose Healthy Food, because it wouldn't have been right for you. A farmer goes into a lease agreement with RTCHF partly because he or she is getting guaranteed fair prices for food–something that doesn't happen too often for American farmers. A farmer goes into an agreement with RTCHF believing that private contracts and private organizations can, and do, function outside public regulatory authority. A farmer goes into a deal with RTCHF expecting that the organization will be there for him or her in a time of crisis, providing legal and other backing–something that is now happening in the federal grand jury situation involving Hebron and Hochstetler. A farmer goes into an arrangement with RTCHF knowing that if a crisis occurs, he or she will assess the legal advice offered, such as from Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, and make hard decisions that inherently involve risk, no matter what the decision. A farmer does not go into a deal with RTCHF with your fixed notions about giving up rights by virtue of this or that organizational structure, because those rules are not fixed, except in your mind.
I do agree with you that consumer members of RTCHF have responsibilities in this situation. That sense of responsibility is the driving force behind the formation of The Raw Milk Freedom Riders. Many of the participants there are members of RTCHF. I am. And I believe I have a responsibility to stand up for the farmers who are taking risks to supply me with raw milk and other food. The Raw Milk Freedom Riders will be engaging in civil disobedience next Thursday in transporting milk from Wisconsin to Illinois. I hope you'll join us. I'd love to meet you.
David
Is Hochstetler under contract with just Vonderplanitz? Or with Vonderplanitz and food club members? Or are the food club members in contract with Vonderplanitz?
Also, who legally owns the cows? I agree with Lola, I wouldn't trust just anyone's milking. And if the cows were moved, what kind of stress does that put them under and how would that affect the milk?
To threaten someone who you have a business agreement with under these conditions doesn't sound kosher. I would expect a business partner to help work out acceptable plans when there are challenges, especially against one part of the partnership. To make threats only drives a wedge and further destroys what was there.
Re-reading your posts, are you saying in essence that Vonderplanitz is a go-between (3rd party), like the grocery stores?
I have been informed that my understanding of a trust association may be wrong, and that it may not follow a corporate structure.
I will have to do more research in this field to know for sure. I'd welcome the opinion of anyone who can offer assistance in understanding the structure of a trust.
David, would Vonderplanitz be willing to describe the (legal) structure of Right To Choose Healthy Foods and its co-op clubs? I'd like more clarity in this before I make any more judgments.
Partly?
Since the late 1940s, the American dairyman has been subjected to the pricing and marketing decrees of the USDAs Office of Marketing and Regulatory Affairs (the same office that controls the Organic Standards, the implementation of the former NAIS, and now Animal Disease Traceability).
The establishment of Milk Marketing Orders and Regions with pricing according to their dictates with no logical explanation as to how they come up with their decisions, has led to the total demise of the small local dairyman. However you look at this situation, in the final analysis the net effect of this program for some 60-odd years has resulted in an emptying of the countryside of locally produced and consumed milk. Because Washington set the price, taking that power away from the producer. Washington has abused that power and we now have a situation where men like Hochstettler have attempted to overcome this in the cowshare marketing arrangement. Price is set by those who have the power to set it. The USDA Office of Marketing and Regulatory Affairs has set milk price to assure concentration of production, and destroy earned income in the countryside of one of the most important food items necessary for health and prosperity to every person alive in this country.
A nation of small farms providing milk and other highly perishable food items into a local community at prices that reflect cost of production plus a reasonable profit so that there is no build up of debt, is an economic engine that replaces war as a source of profit: They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and learn war no more. (Isaiah 2:4)
Our nations debt trouble is the direct result of scaling back farm prices so that the American farmer supposedly could compete on the world market. This started in 1952 and it is not over with. We have failed to price our product to keep the mortgage paid and interest on the debt is now reported to be 40% on average of the price you pay when you buy anything retail.
It pains me that this topic is never addressed. People have to make a livelihood at something. Take the profitability out of producing at a small local level, and it will destroy a country and cause a dramatic change in demographics, such as weve seen. Two dollars or less per gallon on milk, commercial price, just doesnt make it for the guy who is milking 4 to 6 cows on 40 acres. 10 12 dollars a gallon does. And he doesnt need a written contract to do it. If you agree with this, and live close enough, join up with the Raw Milk Freedom Riders next week. This continued type of action will cause TPTB to react. Do we know what their reaction is going to be? No. Is this something that they expected to have happen? Maybe. Is this typical sheeple behaviour? No. Isnt it nice that there still are people willing to make a blow for freedom.
Not food, MILK. Just milk. I guarantee no one will starve without milk, I guarantee you can get all of your vitamins and nutrients and probiotics from other foods besides milk, and I guarantee other farmers are producing food, if not milk. Last I heard, stores like Whole Foods sell food, too.
***
What about all the families I personally know who, apart from raw milk, would have kids still struggling with pretty severe health issues? My state even allows raw milk to be prescribed by doctors, a de facto admittal of its innate healing powers… powers many other foods lack.
Your claim is also pretty ominiscent – you can get everything that is in raw milk in other foods? You 100% sure of that assertion? Any evidence to back it up, since I am sure these moms tried dozens if not hundreds of other things to heal their kids with little to no success.
Sounds very FDA like… they were 100% sure the studies on the arsenic in juice were wrong… too bad for them, they were once again wrong.
It is so saddening to see you and Flim and a few others waste so much energy, sitting on the sidelines from all that we can gather, doing nothing actually productive to help improve the situation, and criticizing those who were willing to put themselves and their necks out to stop this stupidity and tyranny, protect farmers and families and freedoms, when no one else was willing.
Have they made mistakes? Certainly. Who has not? But at least they were willing to do something when everyone was else was doing little to nothing.
It is far too easy to criticize when you are sitting on the sidelines, safe behind your computer keyboard and not in the line of fire and live action others have put themselves in.
As David has invited, and I do the same, join us in Chicago.
For all of you, get in the game – it may change your views substantially when you have to be apart of making the tough calls, fighting the tough fights, instead of throwing stones at the ones out in front.
Flim, if you actually exist, we invite you as well.
If raw milk was legal as it should be, all of the various things you all bring up would be a moot point, since they wouldn't have to exist for people to try and access the food of their choice from the source of their choice.
I urge you to think through to the next stage – that the root cause of America's demise – in town and country – is usury.
This raw milk thing is only one of the hot-spots in the perennial war between the Bank-sters with their predatory practice of lending imaginary 'capital", ( fractional reserve banking ) versus real people who use real capital, to get real increase.
The God to whom America pays lip service says it plain and simple in His Word : usury is a capital crime. He blesses those who pay their proper respects to him as the Ultimate Landlord,by tithing, and He curses those who participate in usury, by delivering them into debt bondage.
as long as America is an accomplice in the crime of usury, it will only get worse. The good news is, you can quit doing business with the criminals, if you want to.
Have these families tried eliminating dairy from the child's diet altogether? If not, how do they know that it is the raw dairy that is causing the health improvements, and not just the elimination of pasteurized dairy?
"…you can get everything that is in raw milk in other foods? You 100% sure of that assertion?"
The majority of the world's population is lactose intolerant, yet these people continue to reproduce and thrive. Undoubtedly, they are receiving adequate nutrition even though they don't consume dairy.
"In a review by Gudmand-Hoyer E in published on The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (1994), it is lowest in Scandinavia and Northwest Europe (3-8%) and close to 100% in most of Southeast Asia. In Europe the frequency increases in the southern and eastern directions, reaching 70% in southern Italy and Turkey. There is also a high prevalence of lactose maldigestion in the people of Africa with the exception of cattle-raising nomads. Moreover, studies conducted by Scrimshaw and Murray and Sahi review the prevalence of lactose maldigestion globally. The prevalence is above 50% in South America, Africa, and Asia, reaching almost 100% in some Asian countries. In the United States, the prevalence is 15% among whites, 53% among Mexican-Americans and 80% in the Black population. In Europe it varies from around 2% in Scandinavia to about 70% in Sicily (see map below). Australia and New Zealand have prevalence of 6% and 9% respectively. In general, it can be stated that about two thirds of the world adult population is lactase non-persistent."
http://www.foodreactions.org/intolerance/lactose/prevalence.html
"It is so saddening to see you and Flim and a few others waste so much energy, sitting on the sidelines from all that we can gather, doing nothing actually productive to help improve the situation, and criticizing those who were willing to put themselves and their necks out to stop this stupidity and tyranny, protect farmers and families and freedoms, when no one else was willing."
My family has been producing food on this farm for 92 years. We've undoubtedly fed thousands of people from this farm. I sold raw milk through a farmshare for a few years, until the state decided to challenge its legality. I got out of it, and I'm thankful I did, since the other farmshares in this state are still being persecuted. I did not and do not want to jeopardize my business and land fighting the bureaucrats. I still produce organic, 100% grass-fed meat and milk as well as the grains and vegetables that feed my family.
What I am "doing" is not criticizing from the sidelines, but warning others that these legal agreements are not as airtight as they being portrayed. Farmer, beware.
I resent the idea that farmers like myself and Flim Flamm are not "doing" anything because we don't agree with the farmshare model and the undue burden it places on the farmer while the consumer bears none of it. I resent the notion that while I'm working 7 days a week to produce quality food, that I am somehow doing less for this movement than those who attend the rallies.
Wave your banners while I plow my fields, and we'll see who makes the biggest difference.
Also, what's the point in Chicago? There is no law against possession of raw milk – no one walking, running, or riding (car, bicycle, horse) across state lines with raw milk is going to get arrested unless they are selling it (exchange of money).
Previous quote from http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011399591_rawmilk21m.html :
A dairy changes course
Tim Lukens used to feel a lot like Brown. In 2006, the state descended on his Grace Harbor Farms, near Bellingham, after two children were diagnosed with E. coli illness. Initially, Lukens said, he "didn't want to believe" his milk was responsible.
He has since learned a lot. First of all, cows shed the E. coli bacteria intermittently. The milk could be fine one day, contaminated the next.
Besides, he said, "You cannot clean a cow's udder off well enough every time" in a commercial operation.
In addition, scooping up milk samples for testing is like fishing. Just because the WSDA doesn't catch anything doesn't mean there aren't any fish in the lake.
"What happens if there was E. coli floating in there and you didn't happen to get it?" he said. "All it takes is one bottle with a few cells."
And lastly, there is the problem of temperature. Bacteria grows in temperatures over 40 degrees. Dairymen quickly cool their milk, but there's no guaranteeing what happens when it gets to the consumer.
"What starts as one or two cells could grow into hundreds," Lukens said.
He stopped selling raw milk after he learned all this.
"My opinion is, there's no possible way you can keep fecal contamination out of a milk stream," he said. "We came very close to one of the worst things somebody can experience causing some kind of permanent malady in someone else's life."
Some people say Lukens has it all wrong. "Some of them are still convinced I got framed," he said. "I didn't."
MW
Have these families tried eliminating dairy from the child's diet altogether? Considering the overall attitude towards milk products they probably did. Dairy products were undoubtedly one of the first things suggested for elimination.
Flim
To keep your freedoms you suggest? Who is the most enslaved, the one who avoids persecution or the one who risks persecution by challenging the system?
My family has been farming for at least four generations and I can certainly empathize and relate to your and Lolas concerns. However this corner we are being backed into is getting smaller by the day. Attempting to preserve ones freedom by avoiding persecution just does not cut it in this world.
MW
There is no law against possession of raw milk – no one walking, running, or riding (car, bicycle, horse) across state lines with raw milk is going to get arrested unless they are selling it (exchange of money).
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head, and it is for this very reason that the raw milk issue has little to do with safety.
The state has many powers, of which one of the most perverse is its ability to indoctrinate. When the state gets finished with you, rational or not, people are likely to believe in anything.
Ken Conrad
Producing food doesn't preserve your rights. Yes it is hard work – I am a farmer as well. I understand keenly how difficult farming is. The fortress mentality of many farmers is one of the reasons why it just keeps getting worse.
You can keep doing that until they take away that right as well. remember the old poem, "they came for… but I didn't say anything, because I wasn't one of those." The line has to be drawn somewhere, and pushed back to where it belongs before that opportunity is completely lost.
Yes, they all removed dairy, as pretty much everyone does FIRST thing when their kid has health issues. Again, your claims are just as audacious as those of the FDA. Many consumers do share in and protect their farmers – for instance, our club's real milk farmer is almost completely unknown and shielded by the clubs they supply. And consumers, because of the actions of club's likes ours, are doing so more and more around the country… hence the raw milk freedom rides.
Again, you can sit on the sidelines and criticize, or get involved and encourage others to as well.
Flim,
You obviously don't know much about RM production, since most of the farmers I know have production costs WAY above $2/gallon. Last I checked my farmer's books, at $8/gallon he is barely breaking even and they are getting a pittance on their labor, probably making $10/hour at best, most likely far less.
But he is in the start up stage and has lots of capital outlays and remineralizing his soils, etc. and stuff that like is hard to quantify and track financially for a farm.
Per who benefits, again, have you even looked at the food freedom website, who is involved, and the like? Who has been interviewed? The varied people involved with the events, planning, speaking, etc.? It is a truly diverse coalition representing all sorts of people, who, at the end of the day, may not agree on everything, but agree on the need for people to have the freedom to choose what they eat and who raises it for them without government interference.
While Mark or Aujonus may benefit, we are primarily protecting the true small farms – the countless real milk producers and consumers across the nation who have said, "enough is enough" already to the FDA's war on freedom, small farms, real food, at the behest of corporate phrama-agri-industry.
By not supporting those who put themselves on the line to stop the FDA and other alphabet soup steam roller, you are supporting them and their destructive food system and small farm destroying agenda.
Per WAPF, again, when you come up with some real factual criticisms, would love to see them… but at this point, most comments made about WAPF on here are at best trolling and at worst make lunatic conspiracy theories about aliens and mad cow disease and the alignment of the moon with Pluto look plausible in comparison.
I have had meals with Sally a few times now, and see both how they use money (btw, did you know CSPI has a multi-million dollar budget, gasp! Like easily 20x WAPFS!), how they compensate people for work, and how they generally treat people. A million dollar budget is pretty much nothing in the modern world, so while your comment may have a "wow" factor for the uninformed, most folk will see right through it.
While I may not agree with every little detail of their operations or positions (I do enjoy some chocolate on occasion for instance), I have seen nothing to warrant the kind of ridiculous accusations people hurl at Sally and WAPF.
So I would submit, before you go around ye old internet atmosphere under some psuedo name because you have to protect yourself (maybe from liability for liable and slander?), at least offer something factual rather than fear mongering and fanciful tales meant to persuade the weak of mind and will.
The event is structured to challenge another facet, another small step forward,with the FDA. We did individuals last event. The FDA backed down. Now we are doing agents. We will see what the FDA does, and then decide where we go.
I would suggest that people keep their uninformed and ignorant comments on hold until they at least read and understand what is happening and who is involved, or have the humility to ask questions so they can understand before hurling stones. If they actually took the time to read, watch, and be involved, their comments and tenor would change.
I did not, and would not, say that RM costs $2/gallon to produce. No way. The CAFO vertical integration model plays the game of spreading fixed costs over more units of production with diminishing profit per animal. As a result, the farmer produces more for less and is caught in a supply-and-be-damned trap with a mountain of debt dragging him down. This is the rule in agriculture today, and not the exception. Milk, properly priced, direct to the consumer, is a breath of fresh air in a battlefield where most operators are afraid to stick their head up out of the foxhole. Now we are beginning to pick up our wounded and start the healing process.
During the 1960s, when the farmer members of the National Farmers Organization (NFO) were addressing this issue by dumping milk and asking for a price increase of only 10 cents per quart, they were chastised for destroying product at a time when people somewhere are going hungry. We were losing 2500 dairy farmers a week in this country through the 1960s. These were all small farms, most of which provided fresh (raw) milk to at least their families if not also their immediate neighbors and communities. No one was getting sick or dying from the fresh milk. These farms were regulated and underpriced out of existence.
The government regulators have been given the responsibility of protecting their corporate sponsors from competition. The edifice that they have created is crumbling with every gallon of fresh milk that is sold without a processor getting a cut. We encourage the producer to price his product keeping his bottom line in the black. In other words, he becomes his own banker and doesnt have to borrow.
Money at interest is usury. In the final analysis it is a system of concentrating wealth and power into fewer and fewer hands. the root cause of America's demise – in town and country is an imbalance of payments and a line of credit substituted for earned income, with a subsequent interest payment. Long term capital debt cannot be carried, nor serviced. There is no substitute for earned income (production x price). A faltered price will not generate the earned income – most of which is paying the labor bill – to maintain a balance of payments between town and country.
Debbie
No, producing food alone does not guarantee any rights, but producing food is a damn fine way to pass on the spirit of self-sufficiency and independence. Aren't the local foods and organic foods movements quiet but powerful statements of non-participation in the system? (They become dangerous, though, when they become the System.) Anytime anyone buys directly from a farmer who eshews chemical/conventional agricultural methods he or she is making a political statement. He or she becomes an activist. Now, I know many people in my area who drink raw milk they get it from neighbors, in-laws, cousins who farm and they dont feel they need anyones permission, let alone a farmshare, to do it. Instead of asking for the right, they exercise it.
In Wisconsin, we all bought into this idea that we needed to fight for our right to raw milk and that the only way to do this was through a farmshare. Turns out, it was already legal for grade A farms to sell raw milk (Bill Marler recognizes this fact on his website, even though FTCLDF doesnt) and that individuals have rights that these corporate farmshares do not. The irony is, that these farmshares are being systematically shut down by the state, while I could (theoretically) still be providing raw milk by virtue of my grade A license and a simple but overlooked exemption in state statute. So who is doing more? He who is having his business shut down by the state to prove a point, or he is who providing the milk by exercising his right to do so? I can work to make change when my business is intact, but if Im shut down, Im done.
As far as your assertion that the comments here about the Weston Price Foundation are bordering on conspiracy akin to aliens, you must realize that WAPF continues to put out misinformation about the risks of raw milk. This is not conspiracy theory, but information you can check yourself by just perusing their website. This is a valid concern, no matter how much you agree with their nutritional theories. Statements such as this, And raw milk from healthy cows, produced under sanitary conditions, simply does not contain pathogenic bacteria. is untrue and misleading. In light of the illnesses caused by grass-fed raw dairy in recent years (Bill Marler has the data in a pdf), can you understand how some of us have concerns? Quite frankly, this sort of misinformation is the type of thing that comes out of a lobbying group with a vested financial interest, not one that claims itself as an educational organization. If education is your mission, truth should triumph, not politicking.
WAPF quote: http://www.westonaprice.org/press/press-release-2003apr11
We did individuals last event. The FDA backed down.
As far as I know, the FDA wasnt currently prosecuting people who possessed and drank their own milk, even if they crossed state lines with it, so what was the victory? Hasn't the FDA primarily been involved in cases where milk was transported across state lines by a third party non-owner, such as with RTCHF or Max Kane? I find it interesting that the Raw Milk Freedom Riders next rally is in Chicago, as both Richard Hebron and Max Kane act as agents delivering milk to Chicago that is produced out of state. I sincerely hope this rally is not located in Chicago as a back-door way of protecting their lucrative markets.
I think we need to realize that there are a variety of ways to rebel against the system. My preferred method is non-participation, even though that is not the popular view in the raw milk movement. That is fine, my method works, too, and is not any less valid because I dont make as much noise as you do. Anyone who producing and selling quality, organic foods, whether certified or not, means that there is one less person and several fewer consumers buying into Big Phoods, Inc. That IS the rebellion. If we dont participate in their system, if we engage in non-participatory actions, we are telling them that we dont need them. Thats how we win.
This statement was made in regards to the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance on Weston Prices webpage. When you read the phrase national standards here, think of RAWMI.
These national standards have resulted in the continued degradation of the American milk supply, with the result that more and more individuals are unable to consume commercial milk without suffering health problems. A shrinking customer base is the price the dairy industry has paid for 'uniform standards.'
http://www.westonaprice.org/press/press-release-2003apr11
So when are you going to stand up and fight?? You can hide for now, but TPTB won't stop with raw milk. I guarentee it!!!
By the way, a startup farm producing grass-fed organic milk could very well have a cost structure of $8.00/gallon. The learning curve is steep and producing quality raw milk takes talent and skill.
Wayne Craig
Wow, I was quite numb after reading all that material…I am very blessed that I successfully raised 4 very healthy daughters who are now very healthy adults!! I just need to make sure that they are aware of this stuff & take the precautions to protect their children.
Deborah
These words sustain me. These words come to us every day at OPDC. For all of you that condemn raw milk or ney say raw milk. For all of you that say raw milk is too dangerous. Here is my comment to you. The best foods are unprocessed and the best immune foods are Biodiverse. No one forces anyone to drink raw milk or fermented raw milk.
Oysters killed 15 people last year in the south. 15 people died from eating oysters!!???!! There is no interstate ban on oysters. There is no move to ban raw oysters. Even the CDC now have been forced to acknowledge that there are literally no deaths from raw milk in their data bases.
All of this raw milk negativism is political or it is ignorance of the risks of other foods.
For some strange reason here in America raw milk has become the royal whipping boy. It is whipped, beaten ,oppressed and suppressed like no other subject or food.
The risks of raw milk production can be reduced and managed. The risks do not become zero….but they become low when compared to other unprocessed foods.
Unfortunately none of what I have said here matters one little bit. What i say here is ignorred and marginalized.
I listen to one set of voices…the voices of my eternally grateful consumers and their families and children. Virtually no other voices matter to me.
One family comes to mind.
Last week we took a call from a mom that begged for some raw milk ( it is missing from store shelves across most of CA ) She said that her child had been treated for severe constipation for years. The child had been treated by doctors and had many medications…none of it worked and had caused additional severe reactions. The child's condition continued to worsen and worsen. Bleeding rectal squincter areas, abominal bloating, crying, pain, etc!!! Horrible.
After drinking raw milk for two weeks…there child was normal for he first time in three years. None of the problems continued…happy healthy kid. The doctors are baffled. We at OPDC know all about baffled doctors. Death by doctor is very real.
This mother was crying. This is my customer. I will serve her. I will feed her. I will move mountains for her. These are things that the negative voices do not hear. These are the stories of "greater good" ignored by most and criminalized and condemned by the FDA.
There are thousands of these stories. This is why raw milk is here to stay. This is why access to carefully produced reduced risk raw milk is critical.
I do not expect those that damn raw milk to care about these consumers of raw milk.
To ignore or abandon these people, these humans, these children, these patients is nothing short of patient abandonment during an acute care phase of true care.
I would think that certain lawyers and others here would appreciate the critical need for access to safe raw milk. But this is not the case. It seems that when any medical claims are associated with raw milk….even when these claims come from crying mothers, it just fuels the fires of more raw milk hatred.
As a humanitarian, my Christmas wish is this:
Let there be peace and listening to the mothers and their stories. Let there be stillness and silence as the mothers speak their truth. Listen to the moms!!
The mothers know what has saved their children. Listen to the far greater good and consider the fair balance between very low risk and massive life saving value. Consider the oysters. Consider the deadly side effects of FDA drugs!!!!
Raw milk will be back saving lives in CA next week. Today CDFA completed the required environmental samples and issued a official Release of Quarantine for the inventories of stacked recalled products so they could be sent to the pigs….lucky pigs. This is the first step in lifting the complete quarantine and return of OP to shelves.
Blessings to all the moms that need their raw milk. We are busting our butts to get it back to you….just a few ore days.
When did an oyster producer last promote the product for babies and children (claiming raw oysters prevented autism and every other malady)? As you know, the raw oyster deaths are from Vibrio vulnificus, and among mostly end-stage alcoholics in the hispanic population. Every one of those deaths are preventable – as such, there was a ban enacted in California on high risk raw oysters from the gulf. After the ban, deaths went to zero.
MW
————
from the Bovine website
===========
I was shocked to learn from a friend on the weekend that a new Food Bill is being brought in here in New Zealand. The new bill will make it a privilege and not a right to grow food.
I find two aspects of this bill alarming. The first is the scope and impact the new bill has, and secondly that it has all happened so quietly. There has been VERY little media coverage, on a bill which promises to jeopardise the future food security of the country.
I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players). It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal. The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org (I have no connection with this website)
Here are some snippets:
– It turns a human right (to grow food and share it) into a government-authorised privilege that can be summarily revoked.
– It makes it illegal to distribute food without authorisation, and it defines food in such a way that it includes nutrients, seeds, natural medicines, essential minerals and drinks (including water).
– By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies. That power may be abused.
– Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for cottage industries, and such authorisation can be denied.
– Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem necessary including guns (Clause 265 1).
– Members of the private sector can also be Food Safety Officers, as at Clause 243. So Monsanto employees can raid premises including marae backed up by armed police.
– The Bill gives Food Safety Officers immunity from criminal and civil prosecution.
– The Government has created this bill to keep in line with its World Trade Organisation obligations under an international scheme called Codex Alimentarius (Food Book). So it has to pass this bill in one form or another.
– The bill would undermine the efforts of many people to become more self-sufficient within their local communities.
– Seed banks and seed-sharing networks could be shut down if they could not obtain authorisation. Loss of seed variety would make it more difficult to grow ones own food.
– Home-grown food and some or all seed could not be bartered on a scale or frequency necessary to feed people in communities where commercially available food has become unaffordable or unavailable (for example due to economic collapse).
et cetera…..
I found the website for the gardens: http://www.marketground.co.nz/waitakicom and waicomgardens at hotmail.com for E-Mail.
I have been a member of this site for over a year, and this is my first post. I did not think it would come to this in little old New Zealand, literally at the ends of the earth. Very serious stuff indeed.