# Court convicts raw milk farmer on appeal



## FarmGuru (Sep 28, 2011)

(Toronto Sun ) A controversial and defiant dairy farmer north of Toronto has been convicted on multiple counts of selling raw milk to his customers.

Michael Schmidt, who has been fighting a battle to deal in unpasteurized milk at his Grey County farm ever since it was raided by government officials in 2006, was convicted on 15 of 19 charges after the Ontario Court of Justice reversed a lower court decision to acquit him last year.

Shortly after Schmidts acquittal, the province and the Grey Bruce health unit appealed the decision.

Complete News Here

http://pakagri.blogspot.com/2011/09/court-convicts-raw-milk-farmer-on.html


----------



## kstaven (Sep 29, 2011)

Yup ... and no doubt another appeal will be launched.


----------



## FarmGuru (Sep 29, 2011)

so what are the consequences


----------



## Ms. Research (Sep 29, 2011)

If you don't do as the UN says because the US or Canada has no law stating that you can not sell or distribute unpasturized milk.  Period.  But the UN Charter has it in it.  UN, better known as the "Rural Commission" will have FULL control of ALL foods.  They will tell you what you can and can not do with your livestock.  Also they will have the ability to confiscate any livestock, including farm property, all under the sake of "the better good of the WORLD".  

So this poor guy is going to be made an example of.  That's why the lower court decisions were overturned.  

Welcome to the New World Order.  Like it?  I don't.  Better start realizing what's going on.  This is no longer a Country of Freedoms.  It's going to be One World Order, controlled through the UN and it's Charter.  No more Bill of Rights.  No more Constitution.  

Read the "Rural Commission"  Also remember under the UN US, Canada, and mexico will all be grouped together.   

It always starts out with "how many people they can protect and save".  It always starts this way.  Great Example:  Food for Oil.  That was their trial run.  And we need not discuss what actually occurred.  Or how about United Way?  Another UN attempt to help the people.  HAHA.  Save the World, and we are going to pay for it dearly.  

Time to read.  Time to study.  Because if you don't know what's really going on, you will find yourself in the same position as this poor bloke.


----------



## kstaven (Sep 29, 2011)

Sorry to correct you. But being from Canada and very involved in this agenda I can tell you that there are laws that state it is illegal to BUY, SELL, OR GIVE AWAY raw dairy. They have existed for decades. Individual states do have laws against this practice but they are gradually being overturned or modified to allow access. 

Where this one steps over the line is that the decision basically leans into " It is illegal to own or co-own a dairy animal, and milk that animal with the intent of consuming it."

Having said that I would suggest that we step back for a second and reread what we may want to post. As this is a very volatile topic and has some backlash that can step on a farmers or persons rights I would like to see this topic remain open.


----------



## kstaven (Sep 29, 2011)

Note: 1955 royal comission in Canada ordered the dairy boards to allow for a mechanism to keep raw dairy available for those who chose it. It has been ignored to date.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Sep 29, 2011)

Just gotta say why shouldn't someone be able to sell raw milk to someone who knows the health risks?? The tobacco & alcohol companies are allowed to sell their products with a warning on the label. He has a good point...

People don't need as much protection from "natural" foods as they do from all these cancer causing chemicals they are putting into all these processed foods imo. People should be allowed to be responsible for their own health. Should the grocery stop selling raw eggs because people might ingest them raw & get salmonella?? 

Just like people choose to take the risk with alcohol & tobacco, like responsible adults they should be able to choose to take a risk with the foods they ingest. As long as it is disclosed that the food/product could be dangerous, I don't see what the problem is.  As a matter of fact, I am not even sure that raw milk has been proven to have health risks has it?

Besides, what is life without some kind of risk?? Boring....


----------



## elevan (Sep 29, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> Just gotta say why shouldn't someone be able to sell raw milk to someone who knows the health risks?? The tobacco & alcohol companies are allowed to sell their products with a warning on the label. He has a good point...
> 
> People don't need as much protection from "natural" foods as they do from all these cancer causing chemicals they are putting into all these processed foods imo. People should be allowed to be responsible for their own health. Should the grocery stop selling raw eggs because people might ingest them raw & get salmonella??
> 
> ...


My opinion too.  People need to be informed of the risk and then be allowed to make a decision for themselves.

The problem comes that when something bad happens people in general want to place the blame on someone other than themselves...and if they cannot take the blame for their own mistake then it creates problems - and that is why these things ended up being regulated.


----------



## kstaven (Sep 29, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> Just gotta say why shouldn't someone be able to sell raw milk to someone who knows the health risks?? The tobacco & alcohol companies are allowed to sell their products with a warning on the label. He has a good point...
> 
> People don't need as much protection from "natural" foods as they do from all these cancer causing chemicals they are putting into all these processed foods imo. People should be allowed to be responsible for their own health. Should the grocery stop selling raw eggs because people might ingest them raw & get salmonella??
> 
> ...


I agree. But would have to add that if one is producing the product they have a responsibility to do so in a safe and responsible manner. This is where the consumer needs to practice a little due diligence. 

Here is some good reading for you on the history and current position. http://wildthingorganics.com/milk.pdf


----------



## that's*satyrical (Sep 29, 2011)

Some of the numbers in the pasteurized/raw comparisons are hard to take into account because the study does not show how many people are drinking raw vs. pasteurized milk, but it is still a good reference. Thanks for that.


----------



## kstaven (Sep 29, 2011)

The second part of the numbers being problematic is that SUSPECTED is grouped with CONFIRMED. If you take out suspected the numbers go to zero in many areas. But it does give a good view of the historical side.


----------



## CESpeed (Sep 30, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> Just gotta say why shouldn't someone be able to sell raw milk to someone who knows the health risks?? The tobacco & alcohol companies are allowed to sell their products with a warning on the label. He has a good point...
> 
> People don't need as much protection from "natural" foods as they do from all these cancer causing chemicals they are putting into all these processed foods imo. People should be allowed to be responsible for their own health. Should the grocery stop selling raw eggs because people might ingest them raw & get salmonella??
> 
> ...


X3.  I thought I became an adult with freedom/freewill at some point.  I didn't realize that when I moved out of my birth mommy's house, I moved into government mommy's house.


----------



## FarmGuru (Sep 30, 2011)

CESpeed said:
			
		

> X3.  I thought I became an adult with freedom/freewill at some point.  I didn't realize that when I moved out of my birth mommy's house, I moved into government mommy's house.


Apparently they have a problem about free will


----------



## PattySh (Sep 30, 2011)

I think it's ridiculous!  You can go to a restaurant and eat raw fish, uncooked eggs, raw meat even, but you can't drink unprocessed natural milk? The world is a little messed up.

edited to add: Vermont is one of the few places you can legally sell raw milk  for human consumption as long as your animals have been tested.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Sep 30, 2011)

Go Vermont!! Now it's time for the other 49 or so states to catch up... LOL


----------



## FarmGuru (Sep 30, 2011)

I have one more reason to love my country


----------



## redtailgal (Sep 30, 2011)

Can you give a link related to this comment?





			
				Ms. Research said:
			
		

> If you don't do as the UN says because the US or Canada has no law stating that you can not sell or distribute unpasturized milk.  Period.  But the UN Charter has it in it.  UN, better known as the "Rural Commission" will have FULL control of ALL foods.  They will tell you what you can and can not do with your livestock.  Also they will have the ability to confiscate any livestock, including farm property, all under the sake of "the better good of the WORLD".
> 
> So this poor guy is going to be made an example of.  That's why the lower court decisions were overturned.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ms. Research (Oct 1, 2011)

Sorry I stepped on people's toes or caused confusion.  Canada and the United States laws are different.  As a matter of fact, frame work of government is different.  I didn't post this to start trouble or offend anyone.  

Read the UN Charter.  RTG:  Read the United States Rural Committee, created by the Current United States President and Congress in the model of the UN Charter recommendations.  Remember One World Order.  

I don't know how all of you feel of a group controlling our food supply, our water supply, our commodities, but it makes me feel just a little uncomfortable.  

KStaven, good luck with your pursuit.    Everyone draw your own conclusions regarding what I posted.    Have a Nice Day.


----------



## kstaven (Oct 1, 2011)

Sad that we as a society have gradually allowed that which our ancestors shed blood to protect be taken away piece by piece.


----------



## redtailgal (Oct 1, 2011)

Ms research: You didnt step on anyones toes. and you certainly didnt start trouble, or offend (me anyway).  I apologize for making you feel as though you had!

I just wanted to read in more detail about what you were talking about. (I couldnt find anything by the way, I googled "United States Rural Committee" and nothing came up like what you were talking about. I'm not doubting you, but I am very interested in reading more about it.

As for the government controlling ANYTHING, it just makes me mad.  IN the USA, the government was created to serve not rule. Things have gotten seriously out of hand.  

I agree with Kstaven, we, as a society, have created this problem by sitting and doing nothing to stop it.

Here is some irony for ya, in Georgia you cannot drive across states lines to buy raw milk and bring it back to Georgia with you.  However, even in the dry counties, it is perfectly legal to cross state lines and bring back alcohol.  Some states have higher penalties for selling raw milk than they do for selling pot.

How messed up is THAT?!!!!


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 1, 2011)

Wow that is messed up. Makes one seriously wonder the true agenda of our law makers.


----------



## kstaven (Oct 2, 2011)

If you want the real skinny on the schmidt decision you should read the judge's decision. Reality is that he did sell outside of anything nearing the definition of informed consumer choice or the cow share system which allowed the prosecution to prove PUBLIC SALE vs. PRIVATE AGREEMENT.

But along with that, statements made in the document do trample our rights and give one a good idea of how the system thinks. They rule and we serve, or to put it a different way, imposed regulation trumps the constitution.

Really there were two issues at play in this case. One was the basic regulation itself and the second was our constitutional rights.


----------



## Ms. Research (Oct 2, 2011)

Whewww, glad I didn't start any trouble or step on anyone's toes.  Didn't want to do that. 

Here's the start.  Here's the Congressional hearings page.  This will take you to where you need to go to find out what's going on.  

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/RDCongTestimony.html

Sorry don't need a government telling me what to eat, drink, or take.  Or how to live.  I just want them to do what they are constitutionally deemed to do.  Protect our border.


----------



## redtailgal (Oct 2, 2011)

lol, my toes a pretty tough.  Dont worry bout me.  It's all good.

Hubby is sometimes worried.  I dont keep many friends because of my blunt personality (I dont sugar coat anyting cept donuts).  So when one of my few friends and I debate, it gets rather heated.  For example, a friend and I were disagreeing on capital punishment.  I said "you stupid idiot! how can you honestly believe THAT? wake up already! oh yeah, you wanna a cup of coffee?" She said yes and then proceeded to tell me what a heartless #$tch I was.  Poor hubby gets so confused.

Seriously, my toes are huge and my skin is thick. lol

And thanks for the link! I'll read up.


----------



## kstaven (Oct 2, 2011)

What I just can't stomach is that in current proposed systems they are trying to class things like a C.S.A. as a retail food establishment. How is it that people getting together to grow some food becomes a retail venture?


----------



## redtailgal (Oct 2, 2011)

Society has become so greedy that everything now has retail potential.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 3, 2011)

The government always wants their piece of the pie no matter how small. The more excuses they can find to "regulate" things the more they can charge "fees" for that regulation.


----------



## elevan (Oct 3, 2011)




----------



## PattySh (Oct 3, 2011)

Someone asked about VT raw milk regulations. Here is the link. Hopefully more states will follow.

http://www.vermontagriculture.com/fscp/dairy/rawMilk.html


----------



## kstaven (Oct 4, 2011)

There are more states working in positive directions and a couple core groups helping orchestrate some of this change.


----------



## CYGChickies (Oct 16, 2011)

The one aspect of darkness I've found after starting the farm is all the instances like these and steadily realizing just how many people are waiting to take you down. I don't sell milk or even have a dairy animal but what if it's eggs next? Are we going to have to buy "Egg Beaters" in the jug/cartons or will all eggs come preboiled/prescrambled? The truth is it's the big commercial venues where nobody cares to look at the dang animals that are passing on diseased products! These diseases aren't magically inserted into products from perfectly healthy animals. Small farmers probably have much healthier much cleaner produce than commercial grocerystore suppliers!

I don't get why this has to be a problem when LOOKING at the facts would clear it up. Why does something necessary for simple basic survival have to be so stupidly political?

CYG


----------



## Queen Mum (Oct 16, 2011)

In the Schmidt decision, Schmidt knew he was breaking the law and broke it anyway.  Not saying what he did on a moral basis was wrong, but what he did was legally wrong.     

Frankly, selling raw milk should not be illegal.  However, in states where it is illegal, doing so is punishable by the force of law.  That is why he was prosecuted.  It isn't fair, it isn't reasonable.  What the state did is stupid, but what they did do was legal.  They had a right to do it.  Schmidt took a chance and lost.  If a whole lot of people took the same chance and stood behind him the state would eventually throw up their hands and give in.  But I don't see a lot of people doing that.  I do see a whole lot of people griping and complaining on the internet.  But I see very few people getting out in the street and defying the laws openly like Schmidt!  The man has guts.  But he's alone in a crowd that stand behind him silent and afraid.

As for the new world order?  I don't agree there.   The new world order only has power because we give it to them.  

BTW, Washington State allows the sale of raw milk as well.  It has to be labeled with a health warning.  

Sara
Queen Mum


----------



## SheepGirl (Oct 16, 2011)

I didn't read the entire article, but isn't it funny how the producer seems to be the only one time after time that gets all the blame, while the consumer seems to disappear out of the picture?


----------



## elevan (Oct 16, 2011)

My opinion here is simple.  If you don't like the laws, work to change them - don't break them.  When you break the law you set yourself up for punishment.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 16, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> My opinion here is simple.  If you don't like the laws, work to change them - don't break them.  When you break the law you set yourself up for punishment.


I don't know. Sometimes breaking the laws are the best way to get them changed. Look at Rosa Parks and Henry David Thoreau.


----------



## elevan (Oct 16, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> elevan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are ways in today's society to change laws without breaking them.


----------



## CYGChickies (Oct 16, 2011)

I've seen the way people are getting maced and tased willy-nilly. I'd be scared if I had raw milk to sell, probably at least get some protective eyewear before trying anything. I'm thinking if we get goats that I'll hold onto my milk until (if/when) it's legalized. I'll use the extra to make cheese and butter which you can never have too much of! Sometimes you have to pick your battles and everybody won't pick the same one.

CYG


----------



## zzGypsy (Oct 17, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> that's*satyrical said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


civil disobediance is one way to draw attention to the laws that need changing.  it takes courage, or desperation, or foolishness, or maybe a mix of all three.  some folks are willing to take a risk of sustaining the specified punishment to make a statement and elevate the issue.  I'm married to such a man, he'll stand on his principles even if there are consequences, because he believes what's wrong, even if supported by laws, needs to be fought, not yielded to.

sure there are other methods, and those methods should be deployed as well.  however, sometimes disobediant people are necessary to make things change.

sometimes one needs to test the law to make a point.  the folks willing to do so are warriors, and my hat is off to them.  I hope to not need to be one of them, but believe me, I've thought about it plenty, because I'm married to a man who's done it.  he has my backing 100%, even though there are real personal and financial consequences.  I love him in part because he is a man of principle, with the fortitude to fight for what he believes in.  he's a warior, former special forces, so he knows about putting his butt on the line.  as a warrior's wife, let me just say that many folks may benefit when others are willing to risk pain and damage because they're acting on principle.  

had Rosa Parks, and Rosa alone, disobeyed the law, we would never have heard of her and who knows how much longer it would have taken for the laws to change.  if one man sells raw milk and is convicted, and then we all wait around while the laws slowly grind through the process of change, if they ever do... well that's one way to get there (maybe get there, or maybe not).  but what if everyone who had raw milk to sell, sold it, and everyone who wanted raw milk, bought it... at some point it becomes a question of will they arrest and prosecute us all?  or will the laws get the attention they deserve and be changed?  sure, in the process, some folks will pay the price for their lawlessness.  change is not always bloodless (metaphorically speaking.)

it's a thing to contemplate.

and before you think I'm just a counter-culture revolutionary type, I'm not.  I think most civil disobediance is unfocused, feel-good BS of no particular use, destined to resulting in nothing but bragging rights for those who want to feel like revolutionaries.  some things, however are worth fighting for, both inside the official channels and outside them.

Just the opinion of a warrior's wife.


----------



## 77Herford (Oct 17, 2011)

Queen Mum said:
			
		

> In the Schmidt decision, Schmidt knew he was breaking the law and broke it anyway.  Not saying what he did on a moral basis was wrong, but what he did was legally wrong.
> 
> Frankly, selling raw milk should not be illegal.  However, in states where it is illegal, doing so is punishable by the force of law.  That is why he was prosecuted.  It isn't fair, it isn't reasonable.  What the state did is stupid, but what they did do was legal.  They had a right to do it.  Schmidt took a chance and lost.  If a whole lot of people took the same chance and stood behind him the state would eventually throw up their hands and give in.  But I don't see a lot of people doing that.  I do see a whole lot of people griping and complaining on the internet.  But I see very few people getting out in the street and defying the laws openly like Schmidt!  The man has guts.  But he's alone in a crowd that stand behind him silent and afraid.
> 
> ...


----------



## kstaven (Oct 17, 2011)

When it comes to things like this I fall back on the lines in my signature below.


----------



## Ms. Research (Oct 17, 2011)

We have laws the Government both local, county, state and federal and they choose which ones to enforce.  Hmmmm....  So which law are they going to enforce this week?  

See there is no forethought.  Government changes to their benefit.  Never what they are supposed to do...represent the people.


----------



## Queen Mum (Oct 17, 2011)

zzGypsy said:
			
		

> civil disobediance is one way to draw attention to the laws that need changing.  it takes courage, or desperation, or foolishness, or maybe a mix of all three.  some folks are willing to take a risk of sustaining the specified punishment to make a statement and elevate the issue.  I'm married to such a man, he'll stand on his principles even if there are consequences, because he believes what's wrong, even if supported by laws, needs to be fought, not yielded to.
> 
> sure there are other methods, and those methods should be deployed as well.  however, sometimes disobediant people are necessary to make things change.


Here, here!



> sometimes one needs to test the law to make a point.  the folks willing to do so are warriors, and my hat is off to them.  I hope to not need to be one of them, but believe me, I've thought about it plenty, because I'm married to a man who's done it.  he has my backing 100%, even though there are real personal and financial consequences.  I love him in part because he is a man of principle, with the fortitude to fight for what he believes in.  he's a warior, former special forces, so he knows about putting his butt on the line.  as a warrior's wife, let me just say that many folks may benefit when others are willing to risk pain and damage because they're acting on principle.


First of all Thank your husband for his service to all of us as a military man.   



> had Rosa Parks, and Rosa alone, disobeyed the law, we would never have heard of her and who knows how much longer it would have taken for the laws to change.  if one man sells raw milk and is convicted, and then we all wait around while the laws slowly grind through the process of change, if they ever do... well that's one way to get there (maybe get there, or maybe not).  but what if everyone who had raw milk to sell, sold it, and everyone who wanted raw milk, bought it... at some point it becomes a question of will they arrest and prosecute us all?  or will the laws get the attention they deserve and be changed?  sure, in the process, some folks will pay the price for their lawlessness.  change is not always bloodless (metaphorically speaking.)
> 
> 
> it's a thing to contemplate.





> and before you think I'm just a counter-culture revolutionary type, I'm not.  I think most civil disobediance is unfocused, feel-good BS of no particular use, destined to resulting in nothing but bragging rights for those who want to feel like revolutionaries.


Before following like sheep, watch who you are following.  Hitler was one such idiot!  Think before you act.  



> some things, however are worth fighting for, both inside the official channels and outside them.
> 
> 
> Just the opinion of a warrior's wife.


I LOVE your thoughtful analysis.


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

We are talking about the right to purchase and sell raw milk - not the oppression of a race of people.

My view on the 2 is very different - as pertains to this discussion (Raw Milk), there are ways to change laws without breaking them first.


----------



## CYGChickies (Oct 17, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> We are talking about the right to purchase and sell raw milk - not the oppression of a race of people.
> 
> My view on the 2 is very different - as pertains to this discussion (Raw Milk), there are ways to change laws without breaking them first.


X2


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 17, 2011)

Ah but such rights being oppressed and ignored eventually lead to the oppression of a group of people be it by race or other means.... And civil disobedience hurts no one besides the one being disobedient which is what makes it heroic.


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

*This topic is about RAW MILK and the laws surrounding it - we need to keep it to that discussion.*


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 17, 2011)

That is part of the discussion the guy was convicted for civil disobedience surrounding the sale of the raw milk. Where are we off topic?


----------



## zzGypsy (Oct 17, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> We are talking about the right to purchase and sell raw milk - not the oppression of a race of people.
> 
> My view on the 2 is very different - as pertains to this discussion (Raw Milk), there are ways to change laws without breaking them first.


this is true...
and...
it's all on a continuoum.
the oppression of a race of people is on the extreme end - but both are essentially about the individual's right to control their own lives.

for me, the issue of *selling* raw milk is an ecomonic one - the right to pursue a business, make a living, in good faith, without undue interference by government.  an *extremely* important issue, in my estimation.

however the right to *buy* raw milk is one of control of what will go into one's body, so I see it as on the same continuoum as civil rights, abortion, enforced vaccinations, the ability of public schools to medicate kids without parental permission... 

If I deem it best for my health to consume raw milk, but am prevented from doing so by misguided and overly parental laws, that is the government interfering with my right to control what goes into my body.  THAT I have an even bigger problem with than the government's interference in the right to conduct legitimate commerce.  Sure, goverment does it all the time (drugs, et.al.  which I have opinions about, but are not the point here).  however, that doesn't make it proper, or constitutional, or morally correct.

in NYC (IIRC) they've passed laws restricting restaruants from serving foods with trans fats.  Some CA municipalities are trying to do the same thing.  to this I say "NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS".  same for raw milk.   I believe all of these things are in the same territory, all off them are government overreaching, and that IS a primary issue, even if you have no interest in the raw milk or transfat subject itself.  

every year, the CA papers list "some of the most important" laws implemented and going into effect.  those editions list a few dozen of the "most imporant" of many hundreds, or sometimes more than a thousand new state laws that have been passed for the year.  the vast majority of these are increased restrictions, not decreased controls.  THAT is where I see the "process of changing laws" at it's most effective - there is no comparable list of hundreds or even dozens of laws that have been repealed or made less restrictive.  if the part of the process that limited government behavior worked as well as the part that limits personal freedoms, I'd be much happier about working within the system, and much more hopefull of it's potentiial to produce good results.

sadly, I'm not seeing that in action.  so I'll stick with my opinion on the need for some people to sometimes make a louder noise, and applaud their courage for doing so even if it comes at great personal expense.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 17, 2011)

zzGypsy said:
			
		

> elevan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_I stick too. These few Americans that are willing to take the time to speak out about injustices, and/or go to jail over their principles are what this countries freedoms were founded on._


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> That is part of the discussion the guy was convicted for civil disobedience surrounding the sale of the raw milk. Where are we off topic?


We veer off topic when we discuss American Civil Rights issues surrounding race discrimination.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 17, 2011)

That was merely given as an  example of an act of civil disobedience that helped bring about a change in the law.  No one was discussing race relations per se. Same thing with Henry David Thoreau, his act of civil disobedience didn't have anything to do  with raw milk either. They were merely given as examples of some historical figures that used civil disobedience as a means to get laws changed that they felt violated their rights, whatever rights those may have been.


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

Sign a petition, write your congressman, stage a protest, run for public office, support a foundation set up to fight the law...there are a lot of legal steps you can take to get where you want.

Let us remember too that this article is about a Canadian farmer and Canadian laws.  True that American laws are just as crazy on the issue, but let's try not to confuse the fact that we're talking about 2 different countries here.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 17, 2011)

That is true. I'm not advocating civil disobedience in all instances. Only as a last resort


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

How about a cow or goat in every back yard?

Laws are about buying and selling raw milk.  I've not heard of one (yet) that says you cannot consume raw milk harvested from your own animal.  If a great number of people had a home milk animal and were consuming raw milk, then wouldn't you think that would make a statement?


----------



## zzGypsy (Oct 17, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> How about a cow or goat in every back yard?
> 
> Laws are about buying and selling raw milk.  I've not heard of one (yet) that says you cannot consume raw milk harvested from your own animal.  If a great number of people had a home milk animal and were consuming raw milk, then wouldn't you think that would make a statement?


it does, and continues to... but a cow producing 5 gallons a day is not in most folks plans, and certainly not possible if you live in most towns.  so... cowsharing was introduced.  a farmer sells shares of the cow to 5-10 people - these folks actually own the cow as a partnership.  the farmer provides board and care - tends and feeds and milks the cow, and the people who own the cow get a percentage of her milk based on how much of her they own.  the cow-share-partners can come to the farm and pick up their milk, or the milk can be delivered to a central location (usually an in-town business of some sort) where it's kept refrigerated until they can come pick it up.  
and that'd be where the farmer making the delivery, or the cow-share-owners picking up milk from a cow *they*own* are arrested. for interstate commerce in a controlled substance.
yep, right here in the US.  because *some* of the cow owners lived in a different state than the cow.  and you can't sell raw milk across state lines, it's a federal offence. and apparently you also can't collect milk from your own cow if it lives in another state.


----------



## elevan (Oct 17, 2011)

I know what milk shares are.  And personally I would avoid them due to current regulations in place, such as those you mentioned.  Again, it's been highly publicized - stories of interstate milk sales being illegal...so why risk it.  That's my opinion.  

Not every breed of cattle produces such a large volume of milk.  A little research on the matter and families would be able to find a suitable home milker for their needs.  There is also the option of goats.  You want to consume raw milk...own a dairy animal (actually own it and care for it).  Your neighbor wants some raw milk - convince him/her to buy a dairy animal.

There will always be more than one way to accomplish something.  

Mainstream citizens are so FAR REMOVED from their food...and therein lies the base of the problem in my opinion.  I'm sure everyone here at some point has been told "I only buy eggs/ meat from the store"....right?  Those people have NO IDEA.  And those are the people who are voting to elect officials who vote to make raw milk illegal.  Start by educating your neighbors.  That's my 2cents.


----------



## redtailgal (Oct 18, 2011)

zzGypsy said:
			
		

> ... but a cow producing 5 gallons a day is not in most folks plans, and certainly not possible if you live in most towns.


This is a very true statement. The vast majority of people would not want a cow in the backyard.  They would not know what to do with it if they had it, not how to feed it, care for it or even get the milk OUT of the cow.  

I was at the gorcery store a couple years ago, and a lady told me that the green beans were on sale. When I didnt respond with enthusiasm, she asked if I didnt like green beans.  When I told her that I LOVE green beans, but I can my own out of my garden, she was appalled.  She told me that she CHOOSES to get hers from the grocery store........because they are fresher than the ones that have been sitting in my basment all winter.  The grocery stores have to restock their canned goods every week.

My neice asked me to plant her some chicken nuggets and cheesburgers in my garden. My 30 year old brother didnt know that potatoes grow under the ground or that a cow had to be bred to produce milk.  One of the new neighbors once called the police because the cows were "having sex in clear view of passers by". seriously.

THIS is the reason that we cannot buy raw milk.  Because it is not the "norm", not the "easy way", not the "sensible" way anymore.  Its quicker and eaiser to go the the grocery store and get the processed foods, than to grow and produce our own foods.  This laziness has led to a bunch of uneducated sheep-like people........who see our government at the shepherd.

Society has gone from "lets work hard to provide for ourselves and protect ourselves" to the new improved "let's find the easy way to do everything, and let the goverment decide what may or may not possibly be dangerous.......AND lets ask them to make laws to protect us so we dont even have to think for ourselves anymore!"

Why is it illegal to sell raw milk?  Because most people just DONT CARE.  The reaction is "yeah? so? just go to the gorcery store and get some, times are modern now......we dont have to milk the cow anymore"


----------



## kstaven (Oct 18, 2011)

It is true that many don't have a clue. But for those that do and due to circumstance can't grow there own, hiring a person to do it for them shouldn't be illegal. Ultimately, and no matter which food product we choose to slide into this argument, that is the heart of the matter.


----------



## Rebbetzin (Oct 18, 2011)

redtailgal said:
			
		

> zzGypsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...









You


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 25, 2011)

If the people that were interested weren't legally discouraged at every turn maybe it would be able to grow in popularity. 

Did you know more 8 yr old girls are hitting early puberty than ever? If only it were publicized that the hormones & chemicals used in modern farming were very much to blame more people might show some interest. Instead special interest groups taint most of the studies & medical advice. How many pediatricians do you think recommend feeding raw milk to your kids or your own farm milk to help prevent early onset puberty? Even the laws stating what is able to be considered organic vary widely. I don't recall my pediatrician ever giving information on food additives to us & how to avoid them. GMO food items are also pretty scary. Diet is really key to good health and somehow it keeps on getting harder & harder to be able to buy or afford healthy food. Now it seems they are trying to make it impossible to even grow your own. Hmmm, wonder if all the money that is being made on prescription drugs & medical care may have something to do with that...They only have enough money somehow to ADVERTISE prescription drugs in magazines & on TV. The only thing that ticks me off more than that is a big oil company advertising how great they are because they are trying to clean up the mess they made.


----------



## elevan (Oct 25, 2011)

There are those of us (and I use the term generically) that choose to work within the law to accomplish the end result and those that take on the law and violate it to make a statement.  I suppose both are necessary to accomplish the end result.

I do not view the outlook of our country so dimly though.  We live, we learn and we grow.  One of the things we need to learn is that we are over regulating ourselves and once we get that through our thick heads then the rest will follow.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 25, 2011)

elevan said:
			
		

> There are those of us (and I use the term generically) that choose to work within the law to accomplish the end result and those that take on the law and violate it to make a statement.  I suppose both are necessary to accomplish the end result.
> 
> I do not view the outlook of our country so dimly though.  We live, we learn and we grow.  One of the things we need to learn is that we are *over regulating ourselves* and once we get that through our thick heads then the rest will follow.


Amen sister!!! And I don't necessarily view everything negatively. I'm just trying to get the point across. There are still many positives about this country & I love it dearly which is why this disappoints me so....


----------



## 77Herford (Oct 26, 2011)

Admin said:
			
		

> _Please direct any questions about moderation to a Staff Member_


----------



## greybeard (Oct 26, 2011)

You can buy raw milk in Texas--with some restrictions:


> Texas law authorizes the Texas Department of Health to regulate the grading and labeling of milk and milk products.  Under the Departments current regulations, Grade A raw milk may be sold by the producer directly to the consumer only at the point of production, i.e., at the farm. 25 TAC 217.32. The Department staff has interpreted the regulation to require that each customer drive to the farm each and every time the customer wishes to purchase milk.


Texas HB75, a bill that would allow farmers to sell raw milk off premises has died this legislative session. The main points of the proposed legislation was/is:
Keep the direct farmer-to-consumer relationship (i.e. no wholesale sales), to ensure that raw dairy is available only to those who intentionally seek it out and that the consumers know the source;  
Keep the sanitary requirements for raw dairy;  
Remove the unnecessary marketing barrier to the sale of Grade A raw dairy products by allowing farmers to bring raw milk to farmers markets, farm stands, and other agreed-upon locations.

I'm ok with the current law and would be ok with the proposed change if it were to pass.
Ultimately, the _responsibility_ is with the buyer and consumer. Due diligence always falls upon ourselves first, last, and always when it comes to what we choose to ingest.


----------



## kstaven (Oct 26, 2011)

Since it is under the grade "A" system, milk testing would be mandatory. Which really removes the risk if texas testing requirements are as thorough as ours are.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 26, 2011)

Admin said:
			
		

> Please direct any questions regarding moderation to a Staff member


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 26, 2011)

Oh and by the way, I don't dislike the law. I dislike the law being used as a means to make money rather than as a means to protect the people as it was originally intended. Any time you look at one of these "safety" laws look at who makes the money based on the law. You see how dangerous GMO's are showing to be, but they're still in a very large percentage of products without being labeled. Why? Probably because someone stands to make a whole lot of money.


----------



## DuckLady (Oct 26, 2011)

Please make sure this thread stays on topic and civil.

Please do not fight and squabble. If you want to participate in this thread, please do so in a civil manner. Otherwise dead horse beating is rather tiresome.

This is an important discussion and any off topic content will be removed and any offenders issued a reminder of the rules via our warning system.

I will clean up a bit and give those of you unable to keep on topic a pass this time. If you have any questions, feel free to send me a PM.

Thank you.


----------



## 77Herford (Oct 27, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> Oh and by the way, I don't dislike the law. I dislike the law being used as a means to make money rather than as a means to protect the people as it was originally intended. Any time you look at one of these "safety" laws look at who makes the money based on the law. You see how dangerous GMO's are showing to be, but they're still in a very large percentage of products without being labeled. Why? Probably because someone stands to make a whole lot of money.


Wow...just wow.  Not every company is out to get people.  Even if I don't agree fully with a law, I still obide by it.  If I break a law openly then, I won't be surprised when they convict me on it.


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 27, 2011)

I believe we were just asked not to squabble. So why are you picking a fight? I don't believe all companies are greedy. I just think it's funny that when laws are supposedly meant to protect our safety that often that gets overlooked in the name of large companies making money. It is happening more & more frequently. Anyway agree to disagree. I'm done discussing my views with you and the beauty of America is that people fought hard for us to have the freedoms to have our own point of view and to be able to read and digest information that our free press publishes and draw our own conclusions. I could pull up examples to support my point of view but I'd prefer just dropping it at this point. Have a nice day!!  Going to visit my goat friends who care nothing for this pointless banter...


----------



## 77Herford (Oct 27, 2011)

that's*satyrical said:
			
		

> I believe we were just asked not to squabble. So why are you picking a fight? I don't believe all companies are greedy. I just think it's funny that when laws are supposedly meant to protect our safety that often that gets overlooked in the name of large companies making money. It is happening more & more frequently. Anyway agree to disagree. I'm done discussing my views with you and the beauty of America is that people fought hard for us to have the freedoms to have our own point of view and to be able to read and digest information that our free press publishes and draw our own conclusions. I could pull up examples to support my point of view but I'd prefer just dropping it at this point. Have a nice day!!  Going to visit my goat friends who care nothing for this pointless banter...


----------



## that's*satyrical (Oct 28, 2011)

LOL It's all good...


----------



## redtailgal (Oct 28, 2011)

awwwwwwwwwwww!  aint it sweet?

I just love it when everybody gets along.

It brings a tear to my eye........sniff.

wait...that's my allergies.

sorry I'll shut up now.


----------

