I was speaking recently with Greg Niewendorp, the Michigan farmer who engaged in civil disobedience last year by refusing to have his cows tested for bovine tuberculosis. (Search under his name for past posts and discussions about his confrontation with law enforcement and regulatory officials.)
He was explaining that he plans on going through the same exercise again this year when the Michigan Department of Agriculture wants to test his animals. Are any other farmers going to stand up with him this time, I asked. Actually, I nearly always ask him this question because, as Bob Hayles suggests in his comment on my previous post, it takes significant numbers of resisters to truly test the system, and gain rights.
As usual, Greg said he thought there could be a few, but he wasn’t certain. I hope he’s right, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there aren’t any others.
We can bemoan the cushiness of consumers’ lives or the reluctance of farmers to take the financial risk, but I think it’s more involved than that. If you look at examples of civil disobedience in American history, they usually occur only after many years of truly unbearable conditions. America was a colony for more than 150 years before the states declared their independence in 1776. It took 11 years even after the notorious Stamp Act of 1765 for the colonies to finally make the big move.
America’s blacks waited nearly 100 years after the end of the Civil War to begin engaging in civil disobedience—after endless indignities, atrocities, and exploitation.
My point is that people don’t engage in civil disobedience until they are so angry and outraged that they are willing to sacrifice everything, including not only their livelihoods, but their lives, to throw off the yoke of tyranny. It’s very difficult to stand up to people in uniforms and refuse to do what they are ordering you to do.
Maybe things will move more speedily in this age of the Internet and based on the bravery of people like Barb and Steve Smith, Greg Niewendorp, Mark Nolts (of Pennsylvania) and Bob Hayles. Barb states very eloquently in her comment on my previous post that she and Steve feel they have so much community support, they aren’t really taking a huge financial risk. That’s how resisters need to feel.
But I suspect things are going to have to get a lot worse before we reach what might be termed “critical mass” in the civil disobedience arena for raw milk, the National Animal Identification System, and other such issues. There will need to be some unspecified number of additional cases of outrage and abuse.
In the meantime, more farmers and consumers will move their transactions “off the radar,” as Bill Dunlap suggests. Then the big question becomes whether the officials will want to crack down or simply turn the other way. They will probably try both approaches.
And in the legal arena, the authorities will strategize and plot and figure out where they can get the biggest bang for their bureaucratic buck. Right now, in New York, they are training all their guns on the Smiths. Their contempt-of-court move might be seen as part of an effort to take out “insurance”—in case there’s a problem with the pending decision on the January hearing, or the Smiths’ suit against the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets makes some headway. Even if one or two areas falter, maybe the third will stick.
It’s also part of an effort to set an example to the state’s other dairy farmers. The message is clear: fool with a herd-share type of arrangement, and you can look forward to going through what the Smiths are going through.
In the meantime, as others have said, it’s a matter of asking judges and legislators to give us our rights back, and as we’re seeing in both New York and California, these upholders of the Constitution aren’t very generous.
***
Speaking of Greg Niewendorp, he reports that Michigan agriculture officials have another animal disease project on their hands–something called Bovine Viral Diarrhea Disease. In a joint project, Michigan State University and Pfizer are seeking volunteers to test cattle in the state’s Upper Peninsula for the disease, and develop a vaccine. Greg sees it as "a potential Trojan horse, or maybe a camel’s nose under the tent, to register property under the premises I.D.–premises is synonymous to tenement–and to expand the National Animal Identification System in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, which now has TB free status, unlike the Lower Peninsula, where the state’s bovine TB program has spent $100 million to date to eradicate a disease that cannot be eradicated, just like BVD."
SB 595 has been introduced into the Kansas Legislature adding new regulations concerning ag product labeling. It contains a provision to make it illegal to "state a compositional or production-related claim that is supported solely by sworn statements, affidavits or testimonials."
This would not only ban rBGH-free labeling, but also many other common labels used by local farmers such as free-range, pastured, grass-fed, antibiotic free, etc.
more information:
http://eatlocalkc.typepad.com/eatlocalkc/2008/02/monsanto-tries.html
http://ga3.org/campaign/KSrbgh?rk=97sziVSqEE8zE
Is that a rhetorical question?
In their paradigm we don’t need to know. ‘Milk is milk’ you know; and all our food is the same and equally safe, or so they have decreed. Organic and antibiotic free are deceptive marketing tactics, despite what your gut is (literally) telling you. We’re not smart enough to judge farming, health and safety practices for our selves. Just trust the bureaucrats, they’re only here to help and know what is best.
Probiotic Study Says Products Could Be Fatal for Pancreatitis Patients
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/13877 (2/14/08)
As to the above study: I’d guess that the harm caused by the probiotics may have been because the probiotics were novel to the harmed patients’ immune systems. I wonder if the researchers knew to control for that aspect, by taking a history of the patients’ diets to ascertain whether their digestive tracts were previously/recently exposed to probiotics.
Our Beautiful Raw Milk Baby: http://farmlet.co.nz/?p=153 (1/19/08)
"Just trust the bureaucrats, they’re only here to help and know what is best."
Just the thought can scare the heck out of you!
Lacedo, I didn’t see where it said what exactly was the "mixture of probiotic supplements" used in the study.
When I see the word "supplements" I think of pills, (I could be wrong here), if they gave the subjects "pills" then I would assume that the probiotics were man made and not natural and would want studies using natural (nonman made) probiotics. Also in severe pancreatitis, as far as I know, patients are NPO (nothing by mouth) they are fed IV with TPN through a central line(Liquid nutrition), so if the patients in this study; that stated they had severe pancreatitis, then I can see why some had adverse reactions. I wonder what the causes were of the pancreatitis. That too may be a factor, along with other health problems.
Owen is adorable! I like the milk bottles they have character.
"In the meantime, as others have said, its a matter of asking judges and legislators to give us our rights back, and as were seeing in both New York and California, these upholders of the Constitution arent very generous"
How is it that "we the people" find ourselves "asking" (I read this as begging ) the government that we created,for mercy?
We lost those rights because our elected representatives have consented to contracts(statutes,acts and regulations) on our behalf that none of us would have knowingly consented to.If our consent isn’t freely given with full knowlege of what the contract means,then we can revoke our consent and the contract(act,statute or regulation)is not binding on us.We can do this individually.There is no need to act as a group
Learn how to use a ‘notice of understanding’ and "claim of right" to take back the rights that have been taken away from us.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7040453665540929835
.
http://www.thinkfree.ca/
Of course this is not going to be easy,but if we rely on the authorities to grant us privileges we are really in trouble.
http://www.nelm.nhs.uk/record%20viewing/viewRecord.aspx?id=590250
Pete is right. If milk is milk, then it is nothing more than a commodity so someone far away can sit on a stock exchange and get rich buying/selling it. If the milk comes with the descriptor "raw", then you can pretty much bet you’ll be dealing with someone very close to the product when you purchase it.
"They’ve got bigger fish to fry now"
From the Newsgang: The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Sunday, 2/17/08, recalled 143 million pounds of frozen beef from a Southern California slaughterhouse that is being investigated for mistreating cattle.
Officials said it was the largest beef recall in the United States, surpassing a 1999 ban of 35 million pounds of ready-to-eat meats.
The federal agency said the recall will affect beef products dating to Feb. 1, 2006, that came from Chino-based Westland/Hallmark Meat Co., which supplies meat to the federal school lunch program and to some major fast-food chains.
I have a copy of the Michigan "manufacturing milk law of 2001". It is an act that prescribes powers and duties of certain state agencies to regulate milk and milk products and to issue licenses and permits.My question is:By what authority or law can the state require someone to submit an application for a license to produce,or distribute milk and dairy products?
I understand that by applying for a license, I would be asking for the privilege of producing and distributing milk,and would be agreeing to be bound by the regulations in the act.If I declined to accept the license (contract),by what power can they claim to apply the conditions of the act to me?
Under commercial law,can a state agency compell me to enter a contract with them against my will?
Is this an instance of the agency simply notifying us that they are claiming the right to license and regulate milk production and then operating under that claim?Couldn"t I claim the right to produce milk without a license unless,of course,they can show me the law that gives them the authority to compell me to contract with them.
Simply claiming to have authority is not the same as power that is defined in law.Acts(like contracts) can only apply where there is mutual consent.
Following the settlement, representatives of raw milk ("fresh unprocessed milk" is what Michigan is beginning to call raw milk for direct consumption) interests, meeting together with the MDA and producers/processors who pasteurize, have been meeting informally over several months to try and develop a path forward for increased access to fresh unprocessed milk in Michigan. These meetings have been productive, with all sides participating and understanding each other better (I would hope, that at its best, the upcoming "blue ribbon committee" in California might make similar progress). It is within this context that a number of technical amendments to both Michigan statutes (not affecting fresh unprocessed milk) were recently introduced into Michigan’s House and Senate chambers, and are now in final committee work-out on technical issues, all while preserving for Michigan the space which exists in the current laws, within which fresh unprocessed milk may flow under cow share/herd lease agreements.
Once we get past the states’ license requirements,I assume that there aren’t any statutes that can claim to regulate an unlicensed producer.Although the "milk law of 2001" has law in its name,it actually is an "act".An "act" or "statute" is defined as a legislated rule of society given the force of law."Society"
is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate,determine and act
for a common goal.
So an act becomes a law when there is "mutual consent".A license is evidence of consent.Without the license there is no "law"
that can claim to regulate milk producers. Whether the "act" is vague or constitutional is of no importance since it cannot have any hold on an unlicensed producer.
The terms of any private contract between people involved in the production and consumption of milk and dairy products is of concern only to those people.
When producers understand clearly that we do have the right to contract freely with
consumers and that the state cannot lawfully interfere,"fresh unprocessed milk" will no longer be in such short supply.
In Michigan, RFID tagging of cattle is "mandatory". What does that mean? Registration of your farm and cattle with the state.Registration was historically the act of a Ship’s Captain signing over his ship and all contents over to the harbor master for safekeeping.If registration is mandatory,then the state can,by the threat of force, take control of your property.Of course that would be unlawful.That would be armed robbery.
What the state can do is decieve everyone into getting a license for whatever business they want to pursue.The license is a contract that is voluntarily entered into.Now the state has the legal authority to set the terms of the contract and you have a choice whether to agree with those terms or not.
Mandatory RFID tagging means that if you deal with anyone who is licensed by the state you will need to tag your cattle.Use a vet–tag your cattle,use a livestock auction–tag your cattle,buy feed from a licensed store–tag your cattle,haul cattle on the public highways–tag your cattle,trade with farmers who’s cattle are tagged–tag your cattle.Your options are very limited,but its all done legally.
You cannot be compelled to get a license no matter what the state says.If enough people would understand this,we could regain our freedom.