Bans on Raw Milk Have Worked So Well, Why Not Extend Them to Junk Food? Debating Debates
I was at a food safety conference a few years back that focused on raw milk, and one state public health official concluded his remarks by saying, to effect, “I personally don’t see why we spend all this time going after raw milk. If people are going to be stupid enough to drink it, then let them go ahead and kill themselves.”
Then, at a raw milk symposium a couple years after that, I heard a raw milk proponent give the other side of the same mind-set. “You know, things will change over the next few years, because the people who oppose us will die off from all the junk food they eat,” she said, referring to the public health regulators.
I always thought those attitudes, while not the sort of peace-making attitudes we’d like to envision, could be the basis of some sort of live-and-let-live approach to the wide gulf over food rights and food safety that exists in our society. It’s definitely preferable to the regulate-and-control approach that has driven oversight of raw milk.
But no, it seems as if the regulate-and-control approach has been judged such a success for raw milk, it’s being extended in a big way to junk food. New York City’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is proposing to ban the sales of soda in containers of 16 ounces or greater. The idea is to reduce the obesity epidemic in the city—according to the New York Times report, more than half of New Yorkers are overweight or obese. I've seen other estimates that possibly two-thirds of all Americans are overweight or obese.
Since the East Coast and West Coast are often national trend setters, it’s not far-fetched to expect such junk food bans to spread—to more locales, and more foods. More regulation. More restrictions. More control. The initial New York ban will cover the sale of drinks from restaurants, push carts, and movie theaters. But you know it won’t stay that way.
I don’t have any brief for soda or other junk food. But if we’re going to be true to a philosophy of favoring food rights, we can’t any more back a ban on soda—no matter what the size—than we can serious limitations on raw dairy.
**
There’s a debate on raw milk upcoming in Canada on Monday, and to go along with it, a debate about the debate.
Canadian dairyman Michael Schmidt has expressed doubts about the usefulness of debates modeled on the one I participated in at the Harvard Law School last February.
“In a way I agree with previous comments, why should we at all even engage in the debate, how we can get the law changed to have the right granted to us to obtain raw milk?” he wrote a few days ago on The Bovine.
I appreciate his frustration, that the general debate format isn’t necessarily useful for resolving anything substantive concerning raw milk and food rights in general. But it is useful for educating people who aren’t familiar with the subject and all its complexity. That’s why regulators tend to shy away from participating in these events—they don’t want to educate the public. In the meantime, nearly 20,000 people have viewed the Harvard debate. Lots of good learning going on.
**
Thanks to Jan for the link (following my previous post) to Sen. Rand Paul’s speech asking for limits on the FDA using armed agents, going after small farms selling raw milk, and preventing food and supplement sellers from making health claims. I like also his mention of the proliferation of federal laws and regulations designed to ensnare law-abiding citizens. He definitely said some things that needed saying in that august chamber. More in the way of helpful education.
This site's mission is to provide news and analysis about food rights and raw milk. Increasingly, our access to privately available food is under attack by government and industry forces that seek to impose their choices on us. The Complete Patient seeks to provide up-to-date information and encourage the development of community to maintain traditional food acquisition options.
I really don't understand this logic, at all, and I think it displays precisely what is wrong with the ideology of the raw milk movement. Personally, I have absolutely no interest in defending a consumerist "right" to drink Coke, particularly when you consider the atrocities which Coca-Cola corporation has committed in Colombia against trade unionists:
http://killercoke.org/
Rather than fighting against limitations on junk food on some silly principle, why don't we work to expand access to whole foods? Farm-to-school-lunch programs are gaining ground around the US, and I'm proud to live in a progressive community dedicated to supporting local farmers, which prioritizes healthy lunches for school kids. Many of the grade schools in Madison even have organic vegetable gardens tended by the students.
Food Sovereignty, NOT Food Freedom!
"Personally, I have absolutely no interest in defending a consumerist "right" to drink Coke..."
Of course you don't, because you don't believe in individual rights, but rather want to impose standards on people based on cultural norms. See Moral Relativism.
So apparently you believe that Americans "right" to consume Coke is more important than Colobmian's right to organize a trade union without the threat of assassination hanging over their head.
Tell me who is the one in favor individual rights here, Lola?
Either/Or is a false dichotomy, Bill, and you know that.
I don't care if the Colombians form trade unions or not. What I care about is that you don't have the right to tell anyone else what to do. Period. You want the right to drink raw milk, but will not extend the same courtesy to those who wish to drink Coke? Hypocritical logic is no logic.
See, this is exactly what's wrong with your political belief system, Lola. Coca-Cola is a fictional corporate person, that exists solely for the purpose of maximizing profit for its shareholders. The "right" to consume Coke requires that someone produces it. Enslaving Colombians for frivolous "rights" based on American's excessive consumerism and addiction to sugar does not count as a legitimate political struggle worthy of the support of grassroots organizers. Yet here we will watch as American "libertarians" organize around just such a ridiculous cause.
Do you have the right to decide what is put into your body, or not?
You are missing the point, Lola. If putting into your body whatever you want entails enslaving others, then NO you do not have that right. Coca-Cola is a murderous capitalist corporation, which should not be allowed to exist in the first place. For Coke to think they have a "right" to vend their products in public spaces, including public schools, is ludicrous, yet they regularly pay off corporate and government officials to ensure their product receives prime placement and access in various public venues.
Get your priorities straight, people!
It is you who has missed the point, Bill.
New York City is not considering banning Coke in 16 oz. plus containers because the officials believe that Coke, Inc. uses abominable business practices, but because they believe Coke is directly tied to the obesity epidemic sweeping the country.
In tying the banning of Coke to "enslaving others", you are creating a strawman argument, and one that has nothing to do with the original question, which is, do you have the right to ingest the foods of your choosing?
"If putting into your body whatever you want entails enslaving others, then NO you do not have that right."
What if what you're putting into your body enslaves animals, do you have that right?
"What if what you're putting into your body enslaves animals, do you have that right?"
A great point, Lola. Many an anarcho-vegan would make just such an argument. However, I believe that the human practice of animal husbandry can be justified if animals are treated with reverence and allowed to fulfill their natural ecological functions and behaviors. (cows on pasture, not on feedlots)
If you'd like to discuss the finer points of why I disagree with veganism, please email me directly. I do think that vegans have a very important point to make, though.
No you are missing the point Bill. Lola is spot on so far. I have never seen a socialist position that does not fall apart, when seen in the light of day, and exposed to fact and logic.
With every reply you make you are strengthening Lola's case for liberty. If we had room for it I could tear apart your corporate and your trade-union positions, for they after being analyzed make no more sense than your junk food position.
IW-
Lola does not seem to care about Colombians rights, but she does care immensely about American's "right" to consume a beverage produced through exploitation and violence.
Lola is not an advocate for liberty. There is a reason I always put "libertarian" in quotes, because it is a misnomer. Lola and her ilk are advocates for nationalism and white privilege.
I thought I had made my position clear on 6/6 when I stated the following:
"You own your body, your mind and your consciousness. Put whatever you want into them, as long as it doesn't hurt me.
"You own your labor and the fruits of your labor. That means private property, as private property is an extension of your labor.
"You have a right to be safe in your person. You do not have the right to attack anyone or their property (see above), but can defend yourself if attacked.
"That is based in the higher moral principles of Natural Law."
These principles hold true for ALL people, regardless of race, gender, religion, etc., etc., etc.
As for how this fits in with the Colombians and Coca-Cola, I have acknowledged many times that corporations are creations of the state/legal fictions. In a system I described above, based on the higher moral principles of natural law, there would be no corporations, and thus no Coca-Cola Corporation.
@ Bill Anderson: While I see your point, in a way, I also understand something else. You cannot force people to want what YOU want. It doesn't matter what the "cause" is, you just can't force people against their will - unless you are a government official. The officials feel we (the public) need to be MADE to see things their way, no matter what. Bloomberg and his ilk are just the beginning.
"But if we’re going to be true to a philosophy of favoring food rights, we can’t any more back a ban on soda—no matter what the size—than we can serious limitations on raw dairy."
That's absolutely right. If you believe that you have the right to drink raw milk (which other people do not agree with) then you need to understand that they in turn have the right to stuff themselves full of junk food (that you perhaps don't agree with). It's about respecting others' rights to choose what is best for themselves at any given time, not imposing our nutritional belief system on others.
Need the like button here. You are so right Lola.
"you need to understand that they in turn have the right to stuff themselves full of junk food"
As long as zero corporate welfare is involved. Otherwise, no.
You mean like this?
http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A13139155
Sure. Of course, that's nothing compared to what GMO-based ag, such as the field corn complex upon which HFCS-based soda free rides, gets. (The purpose of all agricultural subsidies is to benefit commodity buyers, not food producers or eaters.)
True, but your original comment was that people have the right to stuff themselves full of junk food as long as ZERO corporate welfare is involved. Do people have the right to access raw milk if corporate welfare is involved? And if so, what's the difference? Healthfulness? Some don't see raw milk as a healthy food, so where is the line?
That was my original comment and my ongoing comment. But I'm not going to get sucked into what, in a particular context, is "fighting among ourselves". I criticize industrial organic in most contexts, and given the evidence record, OPDC's aspirations to corporate domination are generally fair game.
But in this context, they're nothing compared to the welfare upon which Monsanto, Cargill, ADM, Coca-Cola, Nestle, Walmart, and the like are 100% dependent. I suspect that anyone who would immediately say, "what about [the relatively miniscule] OPDC?" is trying to misdirect.
Small milk producers of course get almost no state support (in the form of agricultural subsidies), so the question of milk's safety compared to HFCS soda is irrelevant to this discussion. But yes, if the transaction is truly between the producer and the buyer (something that's never true where the government and corporations are involved), then it's nobody's business but theirs.
But as a rule, the smaller and more truly independent the producer, the healthier the food is likely to be. So just like with every other benefit, so healthiness and safety also correlate with local/regional, non-corporate production and distribution.
Lola, interesting link you posted. With all Mark's anti-government talk, it it kind of funny that he takes kickbacks from the government.
Once again, Mary, you post something that you obviously do not know much about! Farm subsidies are NOT "kickbacks from the government" and I highly resent you stating that. I still have many family members on farms that are struggling to keep alive their farming (these farms have been in the family for multiple generations) and they would not have been able to do so without farm subsidies. They have to fight against Big Ag in order to keep their production going and if there were no farm subsidies, then these small farmers would have died out. And by the way, farm subsidies do NOT come from the government, it comes from us....the taxpayers, we are the ones that provide these subsidies to farms.
Whether they're thought of as kickbacks or as something else, farm subsidies are a type of government welfare for farmers.
After the crash of 1929, farm prices plummeted and farmers were losing their farms left and right. The government, in order to stabilize prices and keep farmers on their farms, took over the regulation of agriculture and as part of this contract with farmers guaranteed them parity prices for their goods (this also made agricultural products regulatable in commerce). I believe it was around 1952 when farmers last saw parity for their goods, and subsidies are the remnants of this broken contract the government has with American farmers. Farmers have tried to sue the government over this broken contract, but no judge will side with the farmer, as this would make the government liable to pay out billions of dollars in back subsidies to farmers over the course of several generations.
In the context described above, government subsidies are the problem, they are not the solution.
It is estimated that a pound of ground beef, without all of the subsidies that go into it, would cost somewhere around $35.
"And by the way, farm subsidies do NOT come from the government, it comes from us....the taxpayers, we are the ones that provide these subsidies to farms."
The money may come from the taxpayers, but the programs and their policies are made by and administered by the government.
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=fsahome&subject=landing&topic=la...
Of course they were "made by and administered by the government", where else could they have come from? Was anyone else stepping up to the plate to help farmers? Were there other programs or assistance willing to help out the farmers? Yes, when the subsidies came into existance, some farmers refused to accept them, didn't want to participate in them and they lost their farms. Two of my uncles are a perfect example of this, one uncle refused it, the other accepted it. They owned large, lush farm acreage that had been in the family for over 5 generations. With them being the last two males of that line, the land was divided equally between them (this is outside of Madison, WI). I was very young at the time and of course very naive about what was going on. The one uncle that refused the subsidies ended up having to have his farm, farm animals, farm equipment, farm house....EVERYTHING, auctioned off. They were going to move to California, wow I thought...how cool, they get to go to California, yet I couldn't understand why he just sobbed & sobbed when they auctioned off his pride of joys, his matched draft horses, Sugar & Spice, the day they went on the auction block!! I couldn't understand why he was crying, I thought he would be happy to now live in California and not to have to kill himself with the excruciating work that a farm requires. I didn't know that this was not what he truly wanted, yet his pride costed him the loss of his farm. Less than one year later, he was dead...the heart-break was too much for him. Now my aunt was left to raise three young children in a strange place all by herself. So...do you think that was worth refusing the subsidies? Do you think he and his family fared better by him being too prideful? My other uncle, while he was able to hold onto his half of the farm land and despite the farm subsidies, it was always (and still is) back-breaking work to keep the farm going. He is no longer alive, his sons are keeping up with the farm and it is a major struggle to meet the needs of the farm, their children, their healthcare needs, etc, week to week. No, "kickback", which is very derogatory, is not a term to use here..."kickback" implies something illegal, a bribe, something underhanded, a payoff, a coercion, a secret exchange, something immoral, etc. No, using the word "kickback" insults the many hard working, dedicated farmers to remain in the business of farming. Now, I will grant you that farm subsidies, just like all the other programs have been abused and misused by those who truly do not deserve them, such as Big Ag, the CAFOs, etc. But, for the smaller sized farmers, they would no longer be farming if they did not have these subsidies. Yes, it would be better for them not to have to rely on them, but the reality is that Big Ag & the large scale grocers make it impossible for these farmers to carry on. And let's face it, many people are not willing to pay the higher prices that local produce, eggs, grass-fed meat/poultry, etc costs. Many people prefer to spend their money on "fun" stuff, electronic toys, junk food, etc. The move to enhance local (neighborhood, community, family & friends) knowledge (again, teaching here!) about the benefits to spend that extra money on good, clean, nutrient dense foods in order to not only enhance their health & well-being, but to bring a higher sustainability to these farmers is gaining, but the work to spread the word is still very daunting.
Would you be willing to have your taxes double, triple, quadruple or more in order to pay farmers parity prices through subsidies ($35/pound ground beef and $89/pound steak)?
If you would, then why not just pay those prices directly to the farmers and leave the government out of it?
(Let me anticipate an answer: we need subsidies because small farmers would not *currently* be able to compete with Big Ag if not for subsidies.)
While subsidies *may* have started with the intention of helping farmers, it has, since 1952, become a tool of suppression. Since the government has not upheld their end of the contract in paying parity prices, farmers are forced to get off-farm jobs, cut corners or take out loans. I know a couple of dairy farmers who have $1 million + DEBT to the banks because the government dictates the price of milk (and are in breech of contract in doing so) - and currently conventional milk price is somewhere around $15+ per 12 gallons of milk, and the milk processor is not required by law to pay any more than that. Is this helping or hurting farmers? Is this government/corporate collusion or mere coincidence? Abominations such as CAFOs and fast food (cheap meat) are the direct result of depressed prices and easy credit. Subsidies may have helped some farmers in the 1930s & 1940s, but I'd assert they have pushed more farmers off the land than any other factor.
I wish I had a say in which farms go my tax money.
Geez, you are a bit sensitive. I didn't mean to get your panties in a bunch.
There is, in society, a purposely created misconception of what rights are. The greatest misconception is that the government gives you, and defines your rights. Another is that you have the "right" to others property. Another that you have a "right" to curtail others peaceful actions.
A good working definition is that you have the right to do anything that you please until you interfere with the rights of others. Hence you do not have a right to health care IF you think that you are going to fund it by stealing the money from others.
Geeze, I may be just a "daft old woman," but I agree with Bill A. and Lola G. both at the same time!
Bill is correct in supporting/promoting the concept of "food sovereignty" because that is where one/many will be able to function under "freedom." We must collectively have food sovereignty in order to freely engage in the business of growing, supporting those who grow, purchase, and generally promote healthy whole foods for ourselves, our families, and communities. If we want to eat healthier foods as individuals, we simply purpose to do so and we can accomplish that goal (albeit, not conveniently, these days). But, if we want to demand as a nation to have available higher quality foods, then we must demand also the policies that allow for us to engage in the "market place" so that we can either produce those foods without onerous regulations, on both the producer and consumer. Lola is correct also, in that individuals have the right to eat/ingest junk phoods, but insight into this thought is that those phoods will not loom so large over the culinary/caloric intake landscape if/when we can be assured of food sovereignty. Personally, I'd like to relegate soft drinks back to the "soda fountain" where an 8 oz. serving was a Sat. afternoon treat, not THE major calorie intake of our young folks. But I'd never consider this by mandate...rather by "crowding it out" or shrinking the consumption naturally by instituting policies that promote healthy fare, rather than highly processed phoods, which means supporting our local food producers/farmers and giving them the 'freedom' to do what they do best...feed America. (And if you're from CA, please consider instituting the policy of "label GMO's" as a beginning to these endeavors by voting for that in the voting booth this fall).
Do they really believe that "banning" a specific size will cut back on consumption? So instead of one 16oz cup, they'll buy two 12oz cups, thus consuming 24oz instead of 16oz. Brilliant! Is it tax dollars that pay these fools?
In my travels across the country, I've seen people using huge cups/containers (64oz) for filling their coffee and/or sodas at gas stations. These containers were reusable. (saving the environment!)
For the obesity problem, other than walking/moving; teach people how to consume healthy non or low processed foods, teach them how to prepare them and how to buy them. At this point, I'd say even eating conventional produce is better than none at all or consuming the processed phoods.
There's no point getting involved in such misdirectional squabbles. The system's never going to seriously hinder corporate food. This kind of thing is misdirection from any systemic critique of the food or health care systems.
As always, the way one gets the right answer on anything is to analyze from the pro-relocalization, anti-corporate perspective, and then take action from there. This would lead to the best outcome for small producers and those who eat food, socioeconomically and health-wise. Specifically, if one wants to get involved in reformist advocacy, then everywhere one should simply focus on ending corporate welfare. This would help real milk, and all small producers, while helping to abolish industrial food including anything having to do with HFCS (a pure creation of government policy; without corporate welfare, HFCS wouldn't exist as a commodification phenomenon).
This also leads to the best freedom outcome, since liberating ourselves from corporate tyranny would unleash all the bottlenecked human creative forces, especially where it comes to our food.
So while we always should fight directly for our own real Food Sovereignty (for example, raw milk freedom), there's no point fighting for any aspect of food corporatism because some aspect is allegedly subject to a "freedom" assault. On the contrary, food freedom must fight to eradicate food corporatism everywhere, by any means possible. (If mass-produced soda is truly viable and "free", i.e. if there's actual bottom-up demand for it, then it won't need the corporate form and corporate welfare in order to exist. The same is true of every other food product.)
"This kind of thing is misdirection from any systemic critique of the food or health care systems."
Exactly, Russ.
And no, Lola, I do not believe individuals have an inherint "right" to drink a soda beverage produced through the use of slavery and murder.
Once again, your notion of "individual rights" is biased by your Western white privilege, at the expense of the rights of less privileged groups around the globe. This is exactly what is wrong with American "libertarianism." It assumes that white privilege is the norm.
"...I do not believe individuals have an inherint "right" to drink a soda beverage produced through the use of slavery and murder."
Your Logical Fallacy is = Loaded Question
"You asked a question that had an assumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Loaded question fallacies are particularly effective at derailing rational debates because of their inflammatory nature - the recipient of the loaded question is compelled to defend themselves and may appear flustered or on the back foot. Not only is this fallacy a kind of appeal to emotion, it also insidiously frames the argument in a misleading way, like a pre-emptive strawman fallacy."
Bill, do individuals still have the right to drink soda if the soda is produced in a just and cooperative manner? Then who becomes the arbiter of what is just and cooperative? You? Cultural norm? The Health Authorities? That is Moral Relativism.
"do individuals still have the right to drink soda if the soda is produced in a just and cooperative manner"
Yes they do, and in fact, Family Farm Defenders sells one such sparkling beverage (low in sugar, btw) produced without pilfering local aquifers for water, that pays employees a living wage, etc... but there are precious few such producers of soda that genuinely produce it in a just and cooperative manner.
Its worth pointing out that there are efforts to provide just & cooperative coffee, tea, chocolate, and other commodities from the global south (the so-called "third world"), but these are often fraught with peril. The "Fair Trade" certification has unfortunately not always lived up to its goals. I suppose it shouldn't surprise us, then, that RawMI does not always live upto its goals. That is why we need a real grassroots movement for economic democracy in this country.
Occupy Wall Street was a good start... but it is just a start.
If individuals have the right to drink soda if the soda is produced in a just and cooperative manner, who becomes the arbiter of what is just and cooperative, Bill?
what you and the communist agitators call "white privilege" is our birthright - Liberty under the Law, premised upon the Law of our God, in the handbook for governing ourselves which He handed to Moses at Mount Sinai. And we maintain all its benefits as long as we - individually and nationally - keep that bargain. What we're seeing played-out before our very eyes, as Ham-merica is overwhelmed by the anti-christs, is, the penalty clauses of that Marriage Covenant kicking-in, since we breached it
Russ I think this will be my last reply to your long list of non sequiturs. When you can state a well thought out position, only then will it be worth a response.
You rant about somehow my rights being tied to slavery and murder and you then use this as justification for your own brand of slavery.
You do not seem have even a rudimentary grasp of libertarianism. Libertarian philosophy, and the whole American system is founded upon the ideal that ALL men (in all countries Bill) have Inalienable Rights. Read the Declaration and see what I mean.
In closing I have a Sir Winston Churchhill quote for you:
"If you are not a socialist at 20 you have no heart, and if you are still a socialist at 40 you have no brain"
If you like to read may I suggest FA Hayeks "The Road to Serfdom"
Many Blessings
Please forgive me but I am posting this again for those who might have missed the opportunity on the David's previous post, to sign it. For those who might be interested, please sign the petition to "Disarm the FDA" from Rand Paul.
Senator Rand Paul
Imagine gun toting agents from the Food and Drug Administration storming onto your property because you choose to sell raw milk.
Think this can’t happen? Think again.
FDA agents have been barging in to farms and natural food stores to crack down on individuals whose only crime is believing they know better than the government what was good for their health.
Last week, I offered an amendment to the Food and Drug Reauthorization Bill.
My amendment would curb the FDA’s abuse of power and overreach.
It would disarm the FDA, terminate FDA raids on Amish farmers and natural food stores, and put an end to their censorship of dietary supplements.
I hope you’ll take a few moments to watch my floor speech explaining why my amendment to disarm the FDA is so vital.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT8waPM9yYw
After you watch the video, I hope you’ll sign the petition urging your senators to support my amendment to end the FDA’s trampling of our rights.
http://www.randpacusa.com/fda_sign.aspx?pid=0531p
Once you have watched the video and signed your petition, I hope I can count on you to chip in a contribution of $50, $25, $10 – or whatever you can afford – so RANDPAC can mobilize grassroots activists across America to turn up the heat on Congress and reign in the FDA’s rogue behavior.
For Liberty,
Rand Paul
United States Senator
I posted the youtube link to Rand Paul's speech several days before you and it got no response at all. Imagine that.
I refuse to sign online petitions, sorry.
Teaching is the key to either Coca Cola or Raw Milk. Teaching!! The problem is that our country does not give a damn about teaching the truth found in our latest research. Our country does not have the nerve or the GUT to speak truth to power. Plus...Lap-Band surgeons make too much money are fat people. The Illness industry loves sick fat people.
Money blocks teaching...so you ban adverts for Coca Cola and you tax the hell out of it. The sin tax will pay for the public service announcements. Treat Coca Cola like cigarettes...take their ads off TV and out of magazines, teach the kids and put up bill boards all over the place. Instead of the Cow Boy with the LIMP CIG in his mouth,....show a really unsexy fat ass with a 96 ounce Coke at his mouth and an insulin seringe in his arm. That should do it...
Oh....be sure to sell your Coke and Pepsi stock before this initiative is launched.
I agree with freedom 100%....that includes freedom to be educated about the truth and to be taxed for sins. Coke should be 100% legal,....just taxed into oblivion with all tax dollars funding education about truthful healthful nutritional information.
This is not going to happen....not anytime soon. Money runs America...and its fat ass loving illness industry.
As far as how to change the raw milk paradigm...market building and teaching will do it....it already has in CA. Teach and build markets. If people have never tasted raw milk they do not know what they are missing and do not know how to vote with their dollars.
This is Camping with the Cows....OPDC consumers rock!!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Organic-Pastures-Dairy-RAW-DAIRY-PRODUCTS/...
More video...this is the Camping with Cows Video with all of the customers loving it!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Organic-Pastures-Dairy-RAW-DAIRY-PRODUCTS/...
Mark,
I was curious about something. Per Lola's link, why were the commodity subsidies so much higher in 2009 compared with other years at your farm?
http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A13139155
I totally don't understand how those things work. Is the extra money from the government used to improve food safety on the dairy?
MW
It's really obvious that most folks here have a definite opinion about Big Ag-Big Pharma-Big Corporations: of what they are doing to the little people, of how they are controlling and ruining our lives and how something needs to be done to stop the madness. These organizations are run by people, the same people that are at the Bilderberg conference in Chantilly, Virginia right now and no one cares. I posted the list of attendees on David's last article. CEOs, bankers, politicians all at this same meeting deciding future world policy. I posted this list and no one has an opinion on this, nobody cares enough to ask questions or to find out why these people meet every year in different, secret locations to plan their next move on you.
You need to know who your enemy is if you're going to fight.
So keep fighting about whether or not you have the right to drink Coca-Cola and ignore the fact that world leaders and CEOs are making decisions that affect you, right now!!!
http://www.infowars.com/bilderberg-breaking-news/
I've been keeping up with the Bilderberg crap on several web sites. Mostly Lew Rockwell's blog, Activist Post, Liberty Pen, Greg Hunter and a few others. I guess I didn't see your post. But I'm definitely interested in following whatever they let us know - but who knows how much truth we actually hear?
where were you, Barney, 30 years ago, when Jim Guy Tucker broke this story in the ( then) Spotlight? That genuinely-independent paper was run out of business, now the American Free Press, of course, lately vilified with every kneejerk epithet the socialist saps have in their arsenal of slogans designed to paralyze people's minds from thinking for themselves. But what if wm Carto and his "right-wing rednecks were right all along ... that Ham-merica is a plutocracy? What if it's even worse than you can imagine ... that the Republic was designed that way?! As explained by Tupper F Saussy in his masterpiece "Rulers of Evil" ?
one of the best lessons I learned about politicking, was, standing outside an abortuary in San Antonio in 1992. I was upset at how blase passersby were, in the face of the ghastly images we were displaying, trying to inform the public as to what was going on inside. I said to my friend - who'd been at it for years - "how can you stand to do this and be calm?" He replied = "It's not that they won't come around, it's that they're slow to come around" ....
political movements have to ripen. In the meantime, all the defamatory slings and arrows of reproach on the 'bortion issue, and lately with race realism, are water off my back.
applying that lesson to the Campaign for REAL MILK = the most powerful information of all, is : some of the good stuff put in their hands, to drink. They'll be convinced by their guts
"Ham-merica is a plutocracy? What if it's even worse than you can imagine ... that the Republic was designed that way?!"
Exactly. I completely agree with you about this, Gordon. The purpose of the US constitution was not (as many "libertarians" claim) to limit the power of our ruling elite, but rather, to reinforce the banking and mercantile aristocracy.
Unfortunate for your "red neck" friends, Gordon, socialist historian Howard Zinn has already articulating this fact in a far more intelligent manner, without the racist and reactionary redneck vitriol:
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html
And thank you once again for proving to the world that American "libertarianism" is really just an apology for white privilege.
Sadly, the likes of ConAgra and ADM support the ever-popular AND profitable junk food-as it contains THEIR junk...not so much the raw milk, as it competes with same. They are solid believers in the "Golden Ruile"..."He who has the Gold, makes the Rules!"
Compared with the original research done by Tupper Saussy, Zinn is a kibitzer. Hide-bound Roman Catholic that you are, you're most unlikely to make it all the way through Saussy's treatise, so as to grasp the undeniable evidence that the united States of America was a creation of the Vatican, for its own purposes. It stoked the revolutionary fervor, in order to weaken its mortal enemy, Protestant England. Don't bother railing at me, 'til you honestly consider the evidence he put together.
whose statue is atop the Capitol building, proclaiming that she has the government of America underfoot? The goddess of the underworld, same stars encircling her head as the one known in the RC religion as "Mary Queen of Heaven". Just a co-incidence, though, nothing to concern you-selves wit'
Quoting Thom Paine "govt. is a necessary evil" Saussy's conclusion is that bureaucrats swarming the land, parasitizing us, are actually divinely ordained, put in place to chastize the nation, in our sins. When we stop sinning, they cease to have power over us. At present, the whole world lies in the power of the Evil One. So until Christ comes to install the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, we have to endure these pernicious people in the high places. Petty tyrants who are only too delighted to send in the uniformed armed goons, to show their charges = us = who's the Boss. Thus, getting a licence to cool them out, in the meantime, is more appropriate than taking them on.
Zinn's research is full of primary sources, Watson. "A People's History of the United States" is nearly 700 pages, and its far from his only work.
Perhaps you should take the time to read Paine's work, Watson. Being a farmer, you ought to start with "Agrarian Justice" -- Paine's famous manifesto for wealth redistribution.
Who is the kibitzer here, and who is the legitimate radical intellectual? Seems to me, Watson, you are in the same league as Glenn Beck and other pseudo-intellectual right-wing conspiracy theorists. Why don't you leave the work of disecting political ideology to those of us who actually know what we are talking about?
As for "petty tyrants", perhaps we could start with the beloved county Sheriff... that notorious bastion of racism, homophobia, nationalism, and McCarthyism.
Left Wing - Right Wing
Same Bird
ONE HEAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=q9sDkPCHRWo
Its obvious that David Icke doesn't read left-wing periodicals very often. I do agree with some of his points, but he is making generalizations about the left that are just not true. The British Labour Party sold out to the neo-liberal economic agenda, and neo-conservative military agenda decades ago. They are hardly a legitimate labor, social-democratic, or center-left party anymore. They are just Tories who fly a red flag.
Icke is also sorely mistaken if he believes that we merely need to change our perceptions and/or ideas for the house of cards to come tumbling down. Social and economic change is driven by material conditions -- technology, industry, enviroment, resources, etc... ideas are merely outgrowths of those material conditions. If we (being those of us who see through the facade of the ruling corporate elite) want to change the average person's ideas, then we need to change the material conditions that surround them.
There is much more that I could write about why Icke's analysis is fatally flawed, but I will save that for another day.
Your thoughts are the originator of *everything* in physical manifestation. It is not just a metaphysical concept, it is proven by quantum physics. The physical world only exists because there is someone observing it. Icke is right. Change your thoughts, change the world. See the Double Slit Experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Lola, I've been studying quantum mechanics since I was a freshman in high school. This is nothing new to me.
The central point of quantum mechanics is NOT that thoughts create matter. If that is what you believe then you grossly misunderstand quantum mechanics (just as you grossly misunderstand Anarchism...)
The central point of QM is that you cannot observe something without effecting it in some way. In other words, there is no such thing as an "impartial" observer or an "objective" Newtonian truth, because the observer is a part of whatever they are observing.
Anarchism? So it's your brand that caused Lew Rockwell to modify the word to Anarco-Capitalism?
btw, the most recent book on QM I read was this one, about the intersection of QM and Buddhism. Its a good read:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Quantum-Lotus-Frontiers-Buddhism/dp/0609608541
Buddhism teaches compassion, wisdom, kindness, love and respect for all sentient beings.
You embody none of this - in fact, you are one of the most judgmental, intolerant, egotistical and arrogant people I know.
I understand you want to build a better world, but you cannot - repeat CANNOT - do that by coercion, consensus or mandate. The world you want will only come into fruition when you realize that you must respect the individual and his or her karmic path, especially for those you don't agree with (the ultimate display of compassion). A better world will come when we embody the principles of wisdom and compassion and act accordingly; it cannot be achieved by an intellectual understanding of these principles while acting in a discordant manner.
Lola, last time I checked, you are the one who is constantly prodding for personal information and "dirt" on various people in the raw milk movement -- Scott Trautman, Mark McAfee, Sally Fallon, Tim Wightman, etc. -- and attacking them for being in a sort of conspiracy. I am not interested in this "dirt", except insofar as there are a few producers who are negligent on food safety (i.e. Mike Hartmann). My interest is in larger questions of political and scientific importance.
The only thing I'm judging you on here is your inability to understand basic political, scientific, and metaphysical principles, in your (and Barney's) attempts to paint an over-arching theory of how the raw milk issue fits into the broader questions of class domination and the American political/economic landscape.
I'm not a Buddhist, btw, I just thought that book was interesting. Although Buddhism does embrace the things you mention (compassion, wisdom, kindess, etc) it does so in a very different manner than Christianity. Buddhism is about understanding a person's one-ness with the universe -- the interconnectedness of all things -- and the destruction of the ego through meditation. In this sense, Buddhism is the exact opposite of the "laissez-faire" individualist (right-wing faux "Anarchist") philosophy you embrace, which sees individuals as atomized, isolated, self-interested, only concerned about their private property, etc...
You make a lot of assumptions here of what I advocate, and it is painfully obvious to anyone with a brain in their heads that one of the tactics you use to discredit those you don't agree with is to paint their characters with personal assumptions and not facts based on their past words and actions.
I NEVER said, "individualist (right-wing faux "Anarchist") philosophy you embrace, which sees individuals as atomized, isolated, self-interested, only concerned about their private property, etc..."
EVER.
I have only advocated that real, lasting change in the direction of justice and cooperation has to stem from the individual, an individual who has a sense of higher moral principles based in Natural Law, and then, and ONLY then, can those individuals come together in mutual cooperation.
The issue I take with you is your constant need to attack and demoralize those with whom you don't agree. And it's not just me, though you seem partial to me for some reason, it's everyone. You can't seem to let anything go without having to get a dig in - insulting the VERY SAME FARMERS for whom you claim to advocate by saying such things as, "they don't get off the farm much so I need to educate them on politics". Where does your sense of superiority and entitlement come from? You really, really believe these same farmers are going to "redistribute" their property to you landless peasants because you have a college degree and a sense of entitlement? Maybe you need to recognized you were lied to (technical college graduates can make a lot of money - HVAC, electricians, plumbers, etc., AND be their own bosses) and stop trying to take what is not rightfully yours.
You own your body, your mind and your consciousness. Put whatever you want into them, as long as it doesn't hurt me.
You own your labor and the fruits of your labor. That means private property, as private property is an extension of your labor.
You have a right to be safe in your person. You do not have the right to attack anyone or their property (see above), but can defend yourself if attacked.
That is based in the higher moral principles of Natural Law. So now that you know what I advocate, stop putting words in my mouth. It only makes you look stupid.
"The issue I take with you is your constant need to attack and demoralize those with whom you don't agree."
Lola, do you want me to make a list of the people who you have attacked in this movement? It would read as a litany of the raw milk movement leadership, and then some.
As for assumptions... I don't have a college degree. I have a Wisconsin cheese maker's license, similair to a technical degree. After attending UW Madison for two years, I decided it wasn't worth going massively into debt only to be a cog in the corporate machine. I managed to avoid too much debt.
If, as you say, "you own your labor and the fruits of your labor", then what do you make of the institution of wage-labor? Is this not an attempt to steal the fruits of labor, from laborer?
In your petit-bourgeois fantasy world, where everyone owns the fruits of their own labor, how would large-scale industry be managed without falling into the trap of corporatism?
and people chide me for presenting my theology on this forum?! If Hindu-ism is your thing, go right ahead ... but, as old Werner Erhardt used to say to e.s.t. students after he'd brainwashed them with that particular brand of insanity = "you're the centre of your universe / thinking makes it so" ... 'just don't step in front of that oncoming bus'
It's not Hinduism, you dolt. It's principles based on Natural Law, the same Natural Law taught in the Mystery Schools and kept hidden from the likes of you while they throw you crumbs and call it "knowledge".
Before you criticize another's spiritual philosophy you may want to remember that RELIGION is one of the biggest forms of mass mind control, and you are one of their biggest customers.
I certainly do agree with you LolaGranola, that religion is the opiate of the people. but you reveal you-self as the dolt, not understanding the essence of Hindu-ism, vis : that one is projecting 'reality' from the centre of her own universe in which he's the godhead. Main task of which religion is, realization that you're a little god you just didn't know it. Werner Erhart made a whole lotta $$ merchandising that religion packaged as "erhart seminar training" ... the tragic results of which are numerous. Indeed the human mind is poweful, but 'thinking doesn't necessarily make it so', which is where this thread started. I go back so far I can remember the giggly old Maharishi peddling the same non-sense. I encourage you to take a trip to the places where they believe and practice that stuff. You'll be only too happy to hie you-self on back to white, Christian America
Two things, Watson:
1) We were not talking about Hinduism, but Buddhism. They are not the same thing. Hinduism is polythiestic (multiple gods), Buddhism is non-theistic (doesn't care about the question of whether or not there is god(s)), and there are other important differences between them.
2) Regarding the conditions of modern-day China and India, we cannot forget the legacy of Western imperialism in those areas, which continues in milder forms to this day. In China, it was the opium dens and "spheres of influence" setup by Western colonial powers. In India, it was the destruction of their domestic textile industry by the forcible opening of the Indian markets to Western textiles (another great example of the destructive and violent nature of the capitalist free-market)
For most of the history of civilization (since the agricultural revolution), China and India were the most prosperous and advanced civilizations on the planet, while Europe was something of a backwater. It wasn't until the European's discovery of gold in the New World (and plundering of said gold) that the European elites were able to gain a trade advantage over the far east.
If we were smart, we'd do well to learn from their philosophy and history. China and India have far more historical experience with large-scale civilizations (such as America's) than Europeans do.
Sorry, Watson, the ball is back in your court. What I wrote above had NOTHING to do with Hinduism or Werner Erhart, though you seemed to interpret it as such. Again, it is Natural Law based on what is taught in the Mystery Schools. And as far as "Christian" America, Christianity comes from Judaism, and Judaism comes from the Egyptian mystery religions, remember?
you've got an awful lot to learn, Miss Granola. What Moses was given at Sinai, then handed to the Israelites - the testament of the marriage Covenant the nation made with our God - is the foundation of our Bible today. Judaism is the religion which the Jews fell into, when they were taken in captivity to Babylon ... like you say, the mystery religion from ancient Egypt. That's what Jesus Christ condemned as "the tradition of the Pharisees, which came from your father the devil". Today's Bible is the handbook of how we - white Christians, the direct descendants of the man, Jacob -are supposed to govern ourselves, often called "Christianity".... see the difference?
how this all comes in to play in the Campaign for REAL MILK, is ; being Caucasian, I am party to that ancient bar-gain. My birthright, spelled-out in that book, entitles me to milk and honey. No mere co-incidence that the King James Bible is an essential piece of the furniture of every British Courtroom
Watson, the Bible was not written by white-skinned people. The ancient Israeli people were, in all probability, brown-skinned like most of the modern (so-called) Middle East.
During Biblical times, Europeans practiced various paegan and druidic religions until the Romans brought Christianity to Europe.
Haven't you ever read about the ancient Norse mythology? If you are really trying to be true to your white-skinned heritage, this is where you should start... not the old testament:
http://www.viking-mythology.com/
stick to cheese-making, Mister Anderson, rather than making obvious your ignorance of history. The evidence that Caucasians are descendants of the man, Jacob, is overwhelming, for those who will honestly examine it ... "Butter and honey shall he eat"
Then who were the Norse, Watson? I guess Odin must have had brown skin, eh?
As a child, we had a German Shepard named Odin. He was a good dog.
“The drive of the Rockefellers and their allies is to create a one-world government combining super-capitalism and Communism under the same tent, all under their control. Do I mean conspiracy? Yes, I do. I am convinced there is such a plot, international in scope, generations old in planning, and incredibly evil in intent.”
Congressman Larry P. McDonald, 1976
...said the second president of the John Birch Society (notorious for its racism and McCarthyist paranoia)
Barney, its no secret that there is a class hierarchy and power structure to all modern industrial civilizations. The difference between us is that you attribute the ruling class with super-powers and sinister agendas, where I look at the systemic structural causes within society to understand the political & economic outcomes this society produces.
The ruling class may currently have more power than us, but that is only because the working class today is unorganized and has a lot of false conciosness (you are a great case in point, Barney). But even in our current state of disorganization, the ruling class is by no means omnipotent. There are plenty of forces beyond their control.
Capitalism is an alienated system. There is no one group of individuals which weilds all the power. The system and structures as a whole dictate the outcomes.
sorry, spelling typo:
The working class today is unorganized and has a lot of false *consciousness*
Milky Way,
I take advantage of every dairy program possible. I need those funds to pay the damn Milk Pool that rips us off every month even thought I can not buy and use a drop of Milk Pool milk in our products. We are the only dairy- creamery in CA that pays into the Milk Pool but at the same time we can get any assistance or milk from it.
Personnally I wish that all subsidies would dry up and go away. They are a welfare system for non -farmers that live away from the land and scam America. A system developed for the rich by the rich.
OPDC would do just fine with out any subsidies....but if they are giving away money, I have excellent uses for it...and I am going to take full advantage of it. Subsidies are highest when conventional dairy milk prices are lowest. It is called the MILC program. Look it up.
http://news.yahoo.com/farm-bill-end-direct-payments-farmers-113631289--f...
"when farmers in general are enjoying record prosperity."
If I didn't know any farmers, I would assume, after reading this, that farmers are not struggling financially.
http://news.yahoo.com/impacts-proposed-farm-bill-dairy-greater-previousl...
"(There are approximately 51,000 dairy farms in the United States.)"
Wow, there must be some huge dairy farms to produce the amount of milk products that is sold in the US alone. More reason to avoid commercial phoods.
http://news.yahoo.com/midwest-dairy-farm-families-committed-healthy-peop...
.
"Dairy is local. It typically takes two days to get from the farm to the grocery store."
Really? Why don't I believe this?
"The dairy industry has reduced the environmental impact of a gallon of milk since 1944, resulting in 90% less cropland, 75% less manure, "
less crop land? Does that include less grasses the cows are supposed to eat? Less manure? All those cows standing in their own excrement on or next to the mountains of manure and standing pools of liquid sludge is not from the ads of the less than 5 happy Californian cows dotting a lush green hill.
"milk provides one of the richest sources of well-absorbed calcium in the American diet. "
A shame they don't teach people that the body absorbs (metabolizes) calcium from kale and chard better than from a cup of milk.
Sylvia, it has to do with the increased milk volume production of modern dairy cows. The American dairy industry has been breeding cows for this for almost 100 years. The modern dairy cow produces more than twice the volume of milk as her ancestor of the 1970's, and probably several times than of the 1940's.
The same i
...
The same is true of crops for dairy cows. They have been bred for more protein and energy per acre than their ancestors.
Unfortunately, much of that increase in quantity comes at the expense of quality... trace minerals, vitamins, etc...
Bill you said something that I agree with. :-)
From David's post:
"I don’t have any brief for soda or other junk food. But if we’re going to be true to a philosophy of favoring food rights, we can’t any more back a ban on soda—no matter what the size—than we can serious limitations on raw dairy."
I couldn't agree more.
On this coming Sunday, in Prineville Oregon, Mike Schmidt, FTCLDF, myself and many others gather at a rally and fund raiser event to raise funds for Raw Milk in Oregon.
If any one is near Prineville...this will be tons of fun and should not be missed.