The Raw Politics of Raw Milk: ME’s Ag Bureaucrats Ignore Their Guv and Go with FDA in Opposing Food Sovereignty
Two more Maine towns—Appleton and Livermore-- have passed food sovereignty ordinances in the last few days during the current town meeting season. This brings to eight the total number that have legally sanctioned private food sales by local farmers over the last year.
In the meantime, the state’s prosecution of Blue Hill farmer Dan Brown for selling raw milk under his town’s food sovereignty ordinance, passed last spring, continues apace, with depositions being taken of key participants. A trial is possible by late fall.
The dissonance implied in the Dan Brown case--between the expanding will of the people, as expressed via the adoption of food sovereignty ordinances, and the resistance of the bureaucrats--isn’t just a chance occurrence. Now it can be tracked and at least partially explained, thanks to a treasure trove of nearly 700 pages of documents obtained by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund from the state of Maine under its Public Records Act, in connection with the Dan Brown case (which it is helping Brown defend). The documents include email communication between officials within the Maine Department of Agriculture and with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, as well as between the regulators and farmers, along with various policy statements. It’s not the most scintillating reading—lots of stuff about upcoming meetings and depositions and who can attend and can’t attend, for example—but buried within the tedium are important statements that enable an outsider to track the motivations of key participants.
Because the documents touch on a number of important areas—the evolution of Maine’s stiffening policy, an effort to pin the blame for illnesses on raw dairy farmers, and the important role of federal regulators--I’ll be writing about the revelations from these documents in several installments. In this first one, I track the evolution of the Dan Brown case—a major suit against a two-cow dairy-- as an outgrowth of the federal government’s ever more intense war on small dairies in general, and raw milk in particular.
I should say at the outset that Maine has long had one of the more liberal approaches to raw milk in the country, being one of some ten states that allow sales by permitted dairies, not only from the farm, but at retail outlets. As part of that liberal approach, it has long allowed tiny dairies that don’t advertise to sell raw milk privately without requiring a permit. This is what the Food Sovereignty movement has been seeking, for the sale of all farm-produced foods.
Departing from History. For raw milk producers, the first inkling of a shift came in a letter they all received in late November 2009. In that letter, Hal Prince, director of the Division of Quality Assurance and Regulations of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resources, said “there seems to be confusion among businesses and inspection staff alike as to whether or not a license and inspection is needed by those ‘not pasteurized’ (raw) milk processors who do not actively advertise the sale of ‘not pasteurized’ (raw) milk. In the rule, there is no exemption of any kind that allows the sale of milk or milk products without a valid license. As such we will begin immediately to identify those processors who are operating without a license and assist them into compliance through proper inspection and licensing.”
Why the sudden change? Maine’s chief veterinarian, Donald Hoenig, said in a 2011 email answering an inquiry on this subject, “In talking with one of the dairy inspectors who has worked for the state for 30 years, I’m told that this policy (no need to be licensed if you did not advertise) was in place when this person began work in 1981. When oversight of the program switched from my division (Animal Health) to Quality Assurance in July 2009, a decision was made to take a new look at the enforcement of all the dairy rules and that’s when the policy changed.”
I love that expression, “…a decision was made…” As if it was made by robots in a vacuum.
In the Maine Agriculture Department documents, a couple of explanations are offered for what happened. In August 2010, a laboratory evaluation officer, Cathleen Cotton, sent an email that seems to have gone to everyone in the department, stating, “There has been a misconception that if you didn’t advertise, you didn’t need to license. This is not true now, nor has it been. It was simply a problem of resources—with only 2 Dairy Inspectors it was impossible to check every place that may be selling milk without a license. Now the Dairy program is with Quality Assurance and Regulations and we have many more inspectors around the State to keep their eyes open for unlicensed sellers of milk of milk products.”
But just at the time the letter was going out to dairy producers in late November 2009, the state vet, Donald Hoenig, wrote in an email to Hal Prince, the department director, “My recollection is that when the determination was made to only license those folks who ‘advertised’, it was on the advice of our assistant AG…I believe it was the AG’s office who probably advised us that ‘offer for sale’ could be interpreted to mean ‘advertise’. I’m sure there could be other interpretations also but what you’re proposing is a significant change in policy which could impact dairy farmers who may just sell a few gallons out of their tank sporadically. We made the decision to not require those people to be licensed since the practice was widespread at the time. It’s probably not as common now as most dairy farmers are scared of the liability and think it’s just a pain in the neck.”
Hmmm. Nothing to do with number of inspectors. Rather, the practice of private sales was sanctioned by the state attorney general because it was perceived to be legal, and part of a long-standing tradition.
Sparks Fly. It was this decision to eliminate the long standing private sales that would most directly spark the Food Sovereignty movement that took hold in Maine, and led to the formation of the “Five Musketeers” I wrote about a little over a year ago. They would organize themselves to push through food sovereignty ordinances in six small Maine towns last spring, and the concept took hold in Vermont, Massachusetts, and as far away as Santa Cruz, CA.
The Five Musketeers were far from alone. So intense was the opposition to the elimination of the no-advertising provision in Maine that the state’s governor, Paul LePage, began hearing from upset dairy farmers. He didn’t like what he was hearing, and last September wrote a memo to the head of the Maine Department of Agriculture, Walt Whitcomb. “I am particularly concerned about over regulating the small farms with large capital investments and costly licensing. In recent weeks I have received letters, emails and constituent visits concerning regulations involving intrastate commerce.”
Attached to the memo was a proposed bill in the Maine legislature “that a license is not required of any person who produces and sells milk only on the premises of the producer and seller.” Underneath the text of the proposed legislation was a note that appears to be from the governor or an aide: “This statute sounds reasonable. Please advise the problem you see with it?”
Also attached was a letter from a Maine farmer, John O’Donnell, who wanted to let the governor know what was behind the Food Sovereignty movement, and why the FDA was out to stamp out small dairies. “As you may know, several Maine towns passed food sovereignty resolutions last year. This was mainly driven by small farmers experiencing unfair regulations that are barriers to entry, and restraint of trade. Many of these farmers fought for the same Maine bills I did, and saw how the Subcommittee on Agriculture was mainly under the control of the large farm and dairy interests and would never let small farm bills out of committee favorably. We also saw how the Department of Agriculture testified in these hearings that there would be repercussions from the USDA or FDA if we relaxed the standards for selling poultry, milk, and other products in our local communities and state.”
Under this paragraph was a hand-written note, presumably from the governor or an aide, “Why would this concern us, if the products are sold intrastate.”
A State Department Goes Its Own Way. The Maine Department of Agriculture’s response? There is no direct response to the governor's memo that I could find in all the material. The Department of Agriculture appears to have simply ignored the governor, and instead made its views known in a form letter from Walt Whitcomb, the Department of Agriculture’s commissioner, to everyone like farmer John O'Donnell who “shared…thoughts with the Administration regarding local food sovereignty ordinances.
It stated in part: “Local food sovereignty ordinances leave the false impression that residence in certain towns exempt individuals from food licensure and inspection requirements. Because the ordinances conflict and would frustrate the purposes of state food licensing and inspection laws, these ordinances are preempted by state law…persons who fail to comply (with state laws) will be subject to the Department’s statutory responsibility to enforce state law, including the removal from sale of products from unlicensed sources and/or the imposition of fines.”
Why would the governor’s own executive department ignore the boss? It appears that several months before the governor wrote his memo, in the spring of 2011, the Maine Department of Agriculture enthusiastically accepted emailed overtures from the FDA to help defeat the legislation the governor liked. John Sheehan, the head of the FDA’s dairy division, submitted an 18-page tirade against raw milk as “testimony” against the legislation.
The Maine Department of Agriculture appears to have cast its fate with a federal agency rather than with its own constitutional superior. Interesting matter of sovereignty, it would seem.
But understandable from a practical point of view. Bureaucrats know well that politicians come and go, while the bureaucrats remain, always having to scrounge for budget to promote their own ongoing employment. The Maine ag regulators appear to understand well that their best opportunities for future revenue growth are going to come from the FDA as a reward for their good-ol’-boy approach in supporting John Sheehan and all the guys and gals at the FDA. (The FDA hands out funds to states in the form of "co-operative agreements" up to $500,000 each, which are highly prized by state ag and public health regulators. Many of these aren't publicized; as one federal report states: "There is a long history of federal collaboration with state and local food safety agencies, with the result that federal, state and local programs are today intertwined and interdependent in many ways." In other words, the money is often buried in budgets and can't be easily identified.)
Maine's Department of Agriculture has made an investment in its future.
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.
"It’s not the most scintillating reading—lots of stuff about upcoming meetings and depositions and who can attend and can’t attend, for example—but buried within the tedium are important statements that enable an outsider to track the motivations of key participants."
Scintillating can easily equal distracting, and can be downright trivial. "Tedium" often is the critical stuff.
I recommend skimming the scintillating and developing an appetite for the tedium. I know that David knows and does this. Any journalist worth his salt knows to dig, dig, dig. Not, perhaps, just for paper-selling sensationalism but for what we rely on from the journalistic world in the truest way which is to get a handle on the truth of events. The theologians and the philosophers can guide us on the deeper things.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
David, DATCP got active in Wisconsin in 2009 as well, so is shift in animal health to quality control a national strategy? Really good point Ingvar.
we saw this same wickedness as the govt. attempted to wrap its tentacles around small-holdings, in the form of Bill 37 = the Animal Health Act of British Columbia. It would have given unprecedented power for a provinical official to go on to a farm with a Court order, obtained ex parte = without notice to the owner! = take animals away, destroy them, on any pretext of 'disease". Much as what happened lately in Ontario, with the Shropshire sheep being stolen by the CFIA.
Fortunately the issue was publicized by an astute journalist and the govt. was so embarrassed, that they allowed the Bill to "die on the table in the Legislature. Another example of how the battlefront in the Campaign for REAL MILK is, the right to use and enjoy private property
I'm not sure about the shift in animal health to to quality control, but I do believe there has been a concerted national effort to involve the states in cracking down ever harder on raw milk production and countering initiatives that would expand food rights, like the food sovereignty movement and lifting or reducing regulations on small food producers.
David, great article. I'd like to ask, how do these people in the State Department of Agriculture such as the Commissioner get their jobs? Are they appointed or elected? Seems they are independent of our state elected government officials, or a subdivision of the federal DOA? If so, how do the federal DOA decision makers get their jobs and answer to? Sounds like a very curious set up. Who hires the local level regulators?
“…a decision was made…” Is there any means to track that comment to the individuals in position of power to make the decision? I'm sure they'd rather not have it be easy to find out, but is that legal beyond FOI laws?
Sorry for all the questions, but my little mind finds this regulatory labyrinth rather mindboggling and can't comprehend how they set their priorities.
Thanks for the great investigative work you do. Maybe someday you could even write a book about it...
At the state level, it is usually the top person, like the commissioner of agriculture, who is appointed by the governor. The rest are career bureaucrats. At the federal level, it is usually some handful of top people in an agency like Health and Human Services who are "political appointees"--appointed by the president. Everyone else is civil service, and thus career bureaucrats.
Whether at the state or federal level, the political appointments often go to close advisers or friends, or else to important campaign contributors, or the friends of important campaign contributors.
You said: "This brings to eight the total number that have legally sanctioned private food sales by local farmers over the last year."
I am not sure that I agree with this statement. I would certainly agree that what the towns have done is "lawful" though.
In our system of divided sovereignty, where the state of Maine and the people are the sovereigns except in those matters where they delegate some limited powers to others, as has was done to the federal government, and in most States the State also delegates certain powers to internal entities such as counties, cities, and towns. Perhaps for the sake of argument the State of Maine has not delegated this power to anyone. (It certainly did not delegate it to the federal government regardless of the feds unconstitutional power grab.) So that would make the towns declarations illegal.
Perhaps the State of Maine does not have this power.
The fact of the matter is that no government entity has the right to alter or abolish God given/Inalienable rights. Nor do these rights have to be enumerated as was tried with the 10 Bill of Rights. I should hope that you will agree that what you choose to put into your body is an Inalienable right. The whole purpose of government is to protect your rights, Including the Inalienable right of choosing what you put into your body. No one else is possibly harmed when you choose to ingest something - so the government can not say that they are protecting the rights of others. They are not.
These towns and citizens need to stand their ground. Try the legal methods if they work. Rely on jury nullification if it gets to that. And ultimately the use of force if it comes to that. Does not the militia exists to protect us from enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC? Even if that domestic enemy happens to be the State of Maine? From where I sit most of our rights are violated by domestic enemies and very rarely by foreign enemies.
The situation in Maine is kind of murky, since it does have "home rule" provisions, whereby towns and counties retain certain powers or can share power with the state. Whether food regulation is covered is unclear at this point, and may have to be determined by the courts.
http://www.memun.org/public/local_govt/home_rule.htm
The courts will never consider if the States actions violate the Inalienable rights of citizens. Whoever thought that the 3 branches of government would limit the actions of the other has not studied history and the opposite has occurred. The branches of government seem to enable each others tyranny.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions (is) a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." ~Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson also espoused the Rule of 98: http://mises.org/media/1851/The-Principles-of-98
I see no reason why the nullification of State actions by towns, by the Rule of 98 is not a feasible tactic.
I highly recommend the book = And not a shot is fired = by Jan Kozak as a brilliant precis , explaining how the Campaign for REAL MILK is a flashpoint in the mortal struggle between the true character of white Christian America, versus anti-christ communism. It explains their agenda as propounded in a speech to the International Socialist convention in 1960 [ nineteen sixty ]
One of the proofs of its provenance, is, the prediction that Quasi-non-governmental agencies would be used to disguise usurpation of power from elected representatives, into control of bureaucrats. Which is exactly what we see here with the health authorities, the Transit authority, the Safety Authority etc, not forgetting the ‘public-private partnerships’, which are corporations created by the state, ostensibly non for profit. A couple of the hallmarks of these monstrosities are ; access to borrow against the credit of the state yet without acountability, and categorical exemptions from basic laws of the province, written in to the enabling legislation. All the while, those in the high places, directing these entities, stealthily arrange to have their powers expanded, always to the detriment of individual liberties. What happened in BC - the way the regulation was implemented to criminalize raw milk - is a textbook example of how its done.
Gordon S Watson
Below are a few reviews of the book, from the Amazon website
=====================
It explains how the people of Czechoslovakia were manipulated into voting themselves into slavery. Through targeted mass agitation, a free government was transformed into a totalitarian dictatorship -- legally! Today more than ever, the revolutionary methods described by Kozak are being targeted against American liberties.
===============
This political tract book outlines Marxist revolutionary tactics at subverting a democratic parliamentary government. Thus, making a 'legal' change to a social democracy which then erodes into a socialist totalitarian dictatorship. This book illustrates the 'legal' transitional communist takeover of Czechoslavakia without a shot fired. This is strikingly similar to the Hitler-led NSDAP takeover of Germany in the 1930's.
This book should serve as a cautionary warning of how democracy can be subverting and how the constitutional checks and balances of the American Republic serve as a protection against this subversion (assuming that there preserved and not subverted.)
========================
This book presents a blueprint for the takeover of a free government by communists without bloodshed as opposed to that of the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917 in Russia.
The introduction to the book is a short lesson in current American History (1945-1999).
The tract was written between 1950 and 1955 by Jan Kozak, (?) one of the men who oversaw the overthrow of the Czech government by the use of propaganda and subversion in 1945-1946. The plan he used mirrors that which is being used in the U. S. today.
After reading this tract, if you don't believe there's a conspiracy to overthrow our government, you've been living in a political vacuum.
Guaranteed to bring up the hair on the back of your neck.
What you describe as happening in Czechoslovakia has happened here. Christian voters sold out for pieces of silver by voting for one of the two identical parties that promised them other peoples stolen property.
Hence we have implemented all 10 of the planks of the communist manifesto thanks to Christian voters:
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html
There were many tools used: The federal reserve. The council on foreign relations. The United nations.
The single party system described in "Tragedy and Hope".... etc.
We repeatedly hear legislators and executives lamenting that they cannot control the regulatory agencies they themselves created. As these elected representatives cower in fear of their Frankensteins, the citizenry they are sworn to serve and protect become ever less free, and even less safe.
The fundamental question is, Who has the power to govern?
Bureaucrats making laws? What sort of legislators and executives (and judges) would tolerate such a thing? Weak-minded, weak-willed, enamored of process control, ignorant of history, irresponsible, all of the above?
Back in the 1830s de Tocqueville saw it coming. Here's a quote from his book, Democracy in America:
“After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.“
Dave,
de Tocqueville was quite the perceptive guy. Overall, he was pretty impressed by the U.S., though as you point out, he anticipated important political trends early on.
It's my sense that legislators and governors/presidents tolerate, even encourage, such power grabs of the sort I describe in Maine as a way to exert their will, while appearing moderate or protective of people's rights. Thus, a cynic might argue that Maine's governor wrote his memo encouraging accommodation with a wink and a nod toward the bureaucrats. Then, when someone like me comes along, digging through the fine print, I point out that the governor meant well, when in fact, he was simply using the memo to posture. Now, we're more into Machiavelli's territory.
Seems to me all of the arguments are hacking at the branches instead of the root as Thoreau stated. The root in this matter is that that the State (nor the towns) do not have any legitimate right to regulate what we put into our bodies. That is my right and my decision only.
Perahps Judge Napolitano says this more clearly:
When Napolitano says that “no person has the right to tell another person how to order his life, and no human may impose his will forcibly or coercively to deprive another human of his free will,” he really means it. Prostitution is a “victimless crime.” As long as it is voluntary, “there is no justification for governmental intervention.” Want to consume unhealthy foods and beverages? “It is not the job or interest of the government to determine what should or should not be consumed by a free individual.” That, of course, includes the right to partake of drugs, “any drug.” Drug prohibition “is a failed public policy that must be abolished.” Obscenity restrictions are themselves obscene. Only conduct “which can properly be described as harmful, and not merely offensive, can be criminalized.”
Criminalizing dangerous or risky behavior is “hopelessly subjective and opens the door to the regulation of practically any activity the government chooses.” Consensual acts between individual persons have no victim and therefore cannot properly be crimes. Naturally, Napolitano opposes “criminal prohibitions on various forms of gambling.” I was particularly impressed with the author’s defense of organ sales — all seven pages of it. His conclusion? “We must leave this predicament, like any supply-and-demand scenario, to the markets.”
Napolitano perceptibly recognizes how all of these restrictions on individual and commercial freedom come about in the first place: people “go into government in order to utilize its powers to tell others how to live their lives.” They “often prefer to have the state, and not themselves, solve their problems for them because doing so is much more ‘convenient,’ even if it comes at the expense of liberty.”
http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd1203f.asp
IW-
It seems to me you are the one hacking at the branches.
If the problem is indeed the state, then why do you have as your logo the founding document of this state which you so hate, and then pay lipservice to so-called "free market" which is merely an extension of the state? (The only human societies that do not have states are also those which do not have markets)
If we really want to abolish the state, then we need to identify the structural causes for it within the society. The constitution, unfortunately, was originally drafted in order to impose hegemonic class domination over the American people.
Speaking of bureaucracy…
Here’s some scintillating stuff (just kidding, wake up!), this is the URL for the Plum Book. Any incoming federal administration that is not prepared by knowing its mind and doing its homework is going to be weakened in many ways not the least of which is that it will suffer for incoherency. Consider what is involved in the Plum Book. I am thinking of the executive branch here, not the legislative.
Plum Book URL:
http://www.opm.gov/ses/facts_and_figures/plumbook.asp
If you have time for entertainment, Mitchell and Webb have a great skit called “The Pet Hospital.” I laughed so much. But here’s what I think when I watch this skit: think of it from a political point-of-view (POV) and consider that we are the pheasant with the gun-shot wound to the chest (&c) and the Pet Hospital Staff are going to “help” us and watch them closely when they lick their lips. What a give away! From the political POV the hospital staff (that would be pretty much any career politician and their bureaucratic minions/colleagues) desire a) our wallets, and b) authority to control…everything, dictatorial authority.
Pet Hospital URL:
http://youtu.be/4qP8LHurwHw
Lassitude in the citizenry => anything can fall away into either chaos or tyranny. This is a battle that rages about us. Pass the milk, please. Thank you.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
speaking of bureaucracy ; Thomas Jefferson said
Were we to be directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread
"Local food sovereignty ordinances leave the false impression that residence in certain towns exempt individuals from food licensure and inspection requirements. Because the ordinances conflict and would frustrate the purposes of state food licensing and inspection laws, these ordinances are preempted by state law…persons who fail to comply (with state laws) will be subject to the Department’s statutory responsibility to enforce state law"
That sums up the basic challenge of democratic sovereignty to usurped tyrannical power. The ordinances are indeed preempted according to the system measure, and the system's courts will find that to be the case. In the long run reformism and legalism, like any other ways of playing according to the system's rules, cannot work. Which is why such ordinances, like many other things including FTCLDF lawsuits, are primarily political exercises in public education, movement-building, and democratic participation. But in the long run this is a struggle for power, and only power will win - either that of the people, from the bottom up (the only thing which has ever really worked), or that of the corporate/government tyranny.
"The FDA hands out funds to states in the form of "co-operative agreements" up to $500,000 each, which are highly prized by state ag and public health regulators."
This kind of central government purchase of state and local governments is by now pandemic. If you read the local papers looking for it, you'll find this unhealthy dependency everywhere you look.
In the long run, and often immediately as well, no democracy movement, including Food Sovereignty, can prevail unless we break free of dependency on top-down handouts. I'm not talking about details like Social Security, which we already paid for anyway. I'm talking about the entire hierarchical, supply-driven, money-based corporate command economy which results in all power flowing upward leaving only submission and dependency below it.
It's the same thing everywhere as with milk - the only strategy that can work is to relocalize our economies, basing them on fulfilling local/regional needs out of the local/regional economic capacity.
Russ, very eloquent way to say essentially what I had previously posted: don't buy anything you have to borrow money to pay for... and probably don't need anyway. Especially if it's anything that only serves as a way to impress your neighbors, like a meticular lawn or fancy swimming pool.
Grow food instead. Barter when you can. Thanks everybody for keeping it civil so far on this post, please keep it up.
Dear Moose,
##*$@*!! So Ora, who ##$@!! are you to tell me to ##$@!! keep it ##$@!! civil?
Oops, wrong side of the bed.
Have a nice day,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
"Ooops, wrong side of the bed."
Ingvar, I was not "telling" anyone, and nobody has to because I said so. I just tried to ask politely, but I'm sure there are times and issues that will flare people's tempers, and that's ok by me as long as it's not pervasive and constant.
I do think your comment was tongue in cheek and got a good chuckle out of it. That's the spirit, don't get offended and/or offend back.
Good news! Bernie Sander's (Vermont's Senator, and the only socialist in the US Senate) has just proposed an amendment to the farm bill that would require the labeling of foods that contain GMO's:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=09f69aba-a6a5-4292-9ac2-...
Please ignore Gordon Watson and his racist rants and misinformation. The fact of the matter is that socialists (such as Sanders) are at the forefront of the struggle for a sustainable and democratic agricultural system.
Sorry correction, the amendment would allow states to require the labeling, by preventing Monsanto from suing them.
the Farmer versus Farmer wars are heating up. They are a distraction, but one that has a real impact on the entire state of Agriculture, with the only clear winners likely being Big Ag, which is mind-boggling in and of itself, as it appears even they are breaking ranks. Just today, Monsanto launched a patent violation suit against DuPont owned Pioneer. I take some comfort in the fact these tools THINK they're part of the 1 %...they're soon to discover they didn't make that cut. Stay tuned kids, when the story is over-the action begins.
Ora, You're right about it being tongue-in-cheek; I'm glad you got a chuckle.
Ingvar
This one is for Ken. Yet more evidence that the eye was the product of evolution, not intelligent design. It turns out that some women actually have four cones in their eyes, allowing them to see a million more hues than the average person (its related to its opposite color blindness)
http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision
Bill
I am not disputing microevolutionary changes.
It is imperative to keep in mind that there are numerous models for evolution in the scientific community which are based on each other’s shortcomings. Which theory of evolution do you espouse to?
Dr Francis Crick, professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies who received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA was a proponent of directed panspermian theory he states, "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."
In an article in the New York Times, July 29, 2004 following Dr, Cricks death, the article states, “With "Directed Panspermia," he prepared, in effect, an intellectual escape hatch, an alternative explanation for life should scientists in fact find it too hard to account plausibly for the remarkably rapid emergence of Earth's first life forms.”
In light of the current predicament we find ourselves in today perhaps we should take head of the following statement by William B. Provine professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University where in his 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address states, "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
As previously stated and out of respect for Ora Mooses’s wishes, if you care to discuss this topic any further feel free to contact me at churchlanefarm@gmail.com
Ken
"and out of respect for Ora Moose's wishes,"
Ken, and everyone else, while I greatly appreciate that you are considerate of my "wishful comments," please understand that I do not wish to impede or shut down any conversations here, on the contrary I enjoy and learn from them all. But I am glad to see that everyone seems to be playing nice recently.
The question was asked: Who has the real power in "regulatory legislative government".
When I was deeply involved with Senator Dean Florez in CA when we were trying to pass Raw Milk Regulatory policy ( SB 201 ) and food safety reform, he said repeatedly to me that term limits actually play into the power of the regulators hands and against the people. He said that elected legislative rookies get played all the time. They do not know what is happening and they do not know the history. The regulators do know the history and do know how to pull one over on the legislature. This happened with AB 1735 when CDFA sneaked a change into the law regarding Coliform limits for raw milk....and no one asked about it and no one demanded hearings. Dean told me that the legislative old guard knew all about the Alta Dena raw milk wars and would never have let AB 1735 pass with out exposure to hearings and democratic light.
Most people think that terms limits are a good thing....but it sure gives the regulators, the lifer beaurocrats and corporate lobbyists the upper hand...and does not let the elected good guys ( if we the people elect good guys ) stand watch for us all.
So it appears that the true power resides with the upper end regulators that are very smart and know the history of the power struggles. There power comes from the industry that is so connected to them. regulators do not serve the people...they serve industry. Look at the CDFA mission. It is in service to the agricultural industry....specifically not the consumers.
I think I have this one right. A week legislature plays into the hands of corporations and the regulators. CDFA even refused to respond to senator Dean Florez demand to show up for hearings and answer questions about AB 1735.
Isn't this contept of state congress? This is a clear demonstration of who has the power. And Good Old Arnold did not make CDFA comply. Arnold was elected by money provided by BIG Ag....
When the legislature is weak....the regulators can do what they want.
Things are now quite different with Gov. Jerry Brown. CDFA has changed its culture and its tune and now are much more friendly to raw milk as an emerging market as demonstrated at the ongoing Cow Share Working Group process. The power is not in the legislature....it is in the culture of the regulators. The culture of the regulators is determined by the directives given by the governor and the pressure provided by corporate interests.
Thanks David, and Mark for shedding some light on the regulatory power structure. That was exactly the kind of information I was hoping for, now if only the mainstream media would provide coverage so the general public would understand how decisions are made that affect their health and food choices.
Of course it will never happen since we know that the media is also owned by the same corporate interests and has perhaps even worse restrictions and regulation, especially with all the consolidation in recent years. It would probably be career suicide to buck the system, both in the food regulatory and reporting aspects. Thankfully we have alternate media such as this blog, but unfortunately it does not reach the masses. And even if it did, the powers that be would simply try and discredit it as just another conspiracy theory.
Representative Barb Gronemus was no newbie to WI legislature, yet she introduced the premesis ID bill so WI could be first state to implement that part of the communistic agenda. I wrote her and expressed my concerns at the time. She wrote back the typical BS response (that you ALWAYS get) that it was for food safety. Once it was enacted, and DATCP began going after farmers threatening them with jail and/or fines for not taking the mark, she went public saying that is not what she intended. I wrote back and asked that she introduce a new bill eliminating it. She replied that she was retiring, so not going to happen. What did she think was going to happen when Satan's minions got a hold of that power? They were already on a raw milk witch hunt.
What will be interesting to see is how things play out as this system crashes from the weight of all the parasites feeding off the rest of us. Some think we have to get in bed with them and try to appease them, I think they are all going by the wayside. There is no appeasing evil and arrogance. Humility is coming to this land, and no one is exempt. Some day, those same agents will be on our doorsteps, very hungry. The question is, will they be demanding that we feed them, or begging? With the mentality I see today, I'm afraid it wont be the latter.
As for how good Bill's buddies at DATCP are. Why don't they speak out if it's so bad, even one of them??? One person? Come on all you good regulators, stand up for what is right. Tell us how much raw milk you drink and how corrupt it is. Reveal the conspiracies at hand and what a joke the whole regulatory system is.
I remember when they were trying to shut down Tim W. farm Clearview Acres. A good friend of mine was neighbor to a DATCP employee. He told of him laughing at all the grief they were causing Tim in a conversation they had. It was a game and he was happy to be ruining someone's livelihood for no reason. Some wonder why most of us don't believe the liars in regulatory power after that? It's not about science or public health, it's about an agenda, and I question any of their so called outbreaks no matter how much negativity and put downs from Bill A. the "expert" on raw milk. Sorry Bill, I read some of your posts and it's hard to keep up with the merry go round in your head, and all of the insults, but your comments and arrogance are so over the top I have to pick on them.
Cheyenne, you really aren't reading what I said. You are making assumptions about me. My point is that the problem here is a lack of grassroots democracy, not that DATCP is inherintly virtuous.
Yes, there are people at DATCP who "have it out" for raw milk. But they are an exceedingly small group of mostly high-level managers who set official policy. Most people at DATCP either don't care about raw milk, or privately consume raw milk from a family or friends dairy farm. You seem to forget that we live in America's Dairyland. Even a majority of the DATCP board of directors drinks raw milk, or did at one time in their life.
People get the government they deserve. If we want a society based on cut-throat competition (read: capitalism) then that is the kind of government we are going to get. Funny how in SOCIALIST European countries raw milk is perfectly legal, so long as it is hygienically produced, while in the ultra-capitalist US of A, where corporations rule, raw milk is illegal, hey Cheyenne?
No Bill, I don't think you are comprehending what Cheyenne said.
As has been pointed out here many times, "I'm just following orders" is no justification for evil. It is the boots on the ground implementing the policies of the small group at the top. They are not fighting back, refusing to partake, or snitching, or going on strike; they go along willingly. They are just as culpable as if they originated the policy themselves.
I mean really, where are the whistle blowers huh? The only good dirt thats come out publicly so far has been from FOIA requests.
Pete, successfully pulling off a general strike requires considerable labor solidarity and militancy. With the sad state of the labor movement in this country today, it is not realistic to expect a few brave individuals to sacrifice their careers on some imagined principle.
The people who actually do the enforcement actions against raw milk in Wisconsin are the high-level food safety managers. Many of them were also often in conflict with the (now defunct) public sector labor unions over labor issues.
In fact, I know an older gentlemen (now retired) who worked at DATCP, and was instrumental in agitating for a general strike (in both the public and private sectors) during the historic protests in Madison in spring 2010. During this very same time, Cheyenne was expressing extreme hostility towards the protesters, calling them (basically) lazy bums, slobs, etc... and spewing reactionary anti-union vitriol.
Its one thing to criticize the labor bureaucracy for its complacency and being in bed with management. Its another to be against labor unions altogether (as Cheyenne is) because you are hostile to the idea of worker's rights. Cheyenne falls into the later category, so he shouldn't then be surprised when the very authoritarian high-level food safety managers at DATCP (who are now more powerful than ever) crack down even harder on raw milk farmers.
Sorry, I meant "the historic protests in Madison in spring 2011" (not 2010)
Pete, I'm not taking sides here but please consider these two words: career suicide.
If you were a research scientist employed by a pharmaceutical company... or a journalist that uncovers bombshell type info... or even just working in a CAFO raking the muck... etc etc. Do you risk losing your source of income and consider losing your house, family, future?
To equate culpability just isn't realistic.
We all fight back, but in our own small ways that hopefully won't ruin our lives. Vote with your wallet is an easy one.
Heroes are hard to come by.
Hi Ora,
While understanding your point about career suicide, it sounds as though small farmers are fast becoming victims of career murder.
Just how far can a person go, putting an income source ahead of decency? When does a person suddenly decide that things have gone far enough? How can we judge those in the past who did terrible things because a superior ordered them to, and they were afraid, if we justify our own moral
inertia in the present?
How would I behave in a similar situation? Well, to begin with I'd avoid becoming etrenched in the system. I fervently hope I'll be strong and courageous when called upon, because I know it will happen at some point.
I am happy to relate that someone I know working for a pharmaceutical became aware of dangerous practices and after much reflection did report them to the FDA (they also left the company).Whether or not anything came of this, I have no idea. We all know that the FDA is so diligent (well, about milk and small farms, anyway).
We all are heroic in small ways at some point in our lives, so I like to think heroes aren't that rare.
Mama, I like your view and have lived through that very moral crisis. I wouldn't call myself a hero, but my conscience is clean. Many years ago I had a temp stint at a small company in the ozone detection business, and found that they were routinely exposing their workers to high ozone levels during testing. I refused their job offer and left, then reported them to OSHA.
Bureaucracy without representation is tyranny.
Steve Bemis
I still have not finished the banner "Regulation without representation is tyranny," -Steve Bemis-our local farmers love that quote. . . . but I need to work through this. . . .
Bureaucrates are not elected, bureaucracy is the nonelected segment of government, the bureaucracy generates regulations by passing elected officials, regulations are oppressive---ergo? I gotta go with the original quote.
Good posting David.
Its not like state bureaucracy is the only type of unelected government. Corporations are also governments in and of themselves, and yet there is little democratic popular control over how a corporation operates.
The problem here is that regulation from public agencies SHOULD be subject to the public will, but because our entire political system is bought and paid for by corporate money, no such representation exists. Political deals are made behind closed doors between big money donors and politicians, and the public gets little input. Raw milk is only one small part of this larger problem.
Just curious - according to your ideology, how much input and "representation" _should_ my betters allow me?
Especially since:
1. I don't believe such "betters" exist, for myself or for communities in general. On the contrary, both simple reason and the entire record of history prove that no such thing exists.
2. I reject "representation" as a scam and an insult to human dignity.
3. I see no intellectual coherency in the representation ideology. Once you willingly surrender your sovereignty to a hierarchy, according to what principle do you then derive the prerogative to whine about how much or how well it "represents" you? Those who have done so already gave up their sovereignty and dissolved themselves as a citizenry.
That includes those who accept the existence of corporations as well as governments. Corporations are artificial creations of government and extensions of it.
We can't relocalize food economies using such anti-natural forms and processes.
Russ-
I think that David Graeber had it right in "Debt: 5,000 years" when he explained that the best measure of the degree of hierarchy (or lack thereof) in a society, is by the degree to which those who are obstensibly in positions of authority are accumulators of wealth themselves, as opposed to just conduits for the distribution of wealth.
Clearly, in the US, our "representatives" are our superiors, not our servants. It doesn't have to be this way, though. The reasons for this unfortunate arrangment stem from a failure of grassroots democracy to engage in legitimate class struggle. As evidenced so often here by the constitution-worshipping, Americans put their faith in the various bourgeois illussions of "freedom", "democracy", "Republic", etc... instead of organizing for real grassroots power.
Bill,
You didn't answer the question, Who gets to make the decisions? You like to use your pet terms but that doesn't tell us much. Do you get to be in charge since you are a licensed cheese maker, an "expert" on raw milk? Or others with an alphabet soup title/degree. Do we get to consider ideas that Miguel and others bring up, or are they categorically dismissed because they are not accepted $cience? I assume so since you have such disdain for anyone on here that has any other ideas, or questions current regulatory authority and their tests. Now I'm thinking back to your slanderous rampage against Mike Hartman and support of any agency and their testing. When do you use your fist to smash those that don't bend to your will, er, grassroots democratic power, (I'm not very good at using the proper progressive/commie terms)
Please explain "conduits for distribution of wealth". I assume this means taking/stealing from some and giving to others, just not accumulating as much for themselves, like now happens? Does the government size/structure actually change much in your world? Assuming corporations are no longer part of the picture.
We already know you hate cow share and other private agreements because they represent true freedom and might "discriminate" against something or someone you decided was illegal. So, who do you use to crush those evil types?
All I get from your ranting is that you still want big government, and current conventional $cience dictating our every move, just tweak it a bit to suit your agenda and call it something warm and fuzzy.
"We the people" should make the decisions, collectively and democratically.
If you believe in privilege and inequality, then I can see how you would view efforts at achieving equality for oppressed groups as "big government" (i.e. how the John Birch Society called the civils rights movement an attempt to turn the US into a "negro Soviet Republic"). My main objection to the cow-share model is that it privileges a small group of consumers over all others. It is a private "right" (read: privilege) not a common right for all. I would like to see raw milk available as a common right, not a privilege.
And to answer your question about conduits for distribution of wealth: Supposedly, the "free market" is one such conduit, others include corporations, government, religion, non-profits, the nuclear patriarchal family, private charities, etc...
The problem in our society is that those who are in positions of highest authority within the various social structures of corporate/government/religion/non-profit/etc... use their positions of authority to enrich themselves. In a more egalitarian (read: less hierarchical) society, those people would be constantly compelled through social pressure into giving their wealth away. Instead, our society prioritizes protecting the interests of property from those who are not in positions of authority.
My point here Cheyene, is don't blame the labor unions for our shitty economic situation, when there are billionaires corporate CEOs and Christian preachers (Pat Robertson, anyone?). We know what the problem is. Concentration of economic power inevitably leads to concentration of political power.
That is precisely why capitalism is such an unstable social system, and why the "free-market" can never lead to real human freedom. So long as there is competition, there are winners and losers, and winners will always use their positions power to reinforce their privilege unless they are compelled to do otherwise by social, economic, and/or legal pressure.
Two other points:
1) I'm not against corporations per se. A corporation is merely a "corpus" -- a body of people who come together in common cause. My concern is with profoundly undemocratic way that corporations are structured, and whose interests they actually serve.
2) As for your concerns about "$cience", yes I actually agree with you. The marriage of capital and science has never been a marriage of equals. Since the earlist days of capitalism during the industrial revolution, science has been the servant, and capital the master. The solution to this problem is not get rid of science altogether, but to democratize it.
I am not against corporations either. You say they are "profoundly undemocratic" and I don't disagree, but in any privately owned corporation there will obviously be very little democracy. In publicly owned ones, the majority stockholders are essentially the owners so, ditto.
My problem with corporations is the individuals in control, who make decisions that kill and injure countless people and destroy the environment, hide behind the "LLC corporate shield" and are not liable for decisions they made, either as individuals or as a group. Legal liability and accountability needs to be enforced, especially if corporations are to be considered to have all the same rights as "people." Let's see a few CEOs behind bars and I'd bet it would change the landscape.
Of course it will never happen, because corporations already control the selection of polititians who would have to make those changes in the corporate laws.
Totally agree, Ora! I think you hit the nail on the head, with that last statement!
I asked why we who create the wealth would need any fraudulent parasitic "betters" - politicians, bureaucrats, capitalists, "employers" - to distribute that wealth on our behalf at all, when we can do the job far better ourselves.
And yes, we must abolish corporations as such. They're nothing but extensions of government intended to further detach power and prerogatives from responsibility and accountability. Corporations have no purpose but to enable gangsters to commit crimes with "legal" impunity. They're explicitly sociopathic, in principle and practice. They're legally required to act in a destructive, antisocial manner. They have no place in a human society, and decent human beings would never tolerate their existence.
Meanwhile, their existence benefits only the biggest players, although they swindle lots of small businesses (and misguided people in general) into thinking incorporation is a good thing. But small businesses would be much better off if the corporate form didn't exist at all. Needless to say, humanity would be vastly better off if sociopathic power couldn't concentrate this way. (It's just like with property itself. As _Kelo_ enshrined, "property" really means only the total prerogative of the biggest dogs. Small property-holding is allowed to exist or not in any given situation according to the convenience of the 1%. Productive users of the land and resources would be much better off, and far more stably on the land, if we abolished "property" in favor of community stewardship and usufruct, i.e. the way the vasy majority of humanity naturally lived for most of its history.)
Who would be better off without the corporate form, small dairies or Dean Foods and Monsanto? Who's better off now?
Bill,
We the people? Who's the "we"? Certainly not the folks on this blog! Only your types as there is no room for any other 'we' in your world. "We the people" decided to reelect Scott Walker in WI and you can't stand it, so that line is a lie.
Lets take this blog and those that post and come up with a solution for raw milk. It's impossible because you despise most everyone, and fail to listen to even the most basic ideas and concerns. So, how can "we the people" decide something if it doesn't fit your agenda? If you disagree with any part, the insults/innuendo, guilt by association, quips and quotes from the latest book you read, and blame begin. The conversation is constantly sidetracked by your totally unrelated posts that do nothing but distract and stir the pot. You claim tolerance (through government force), yet you are the most intolerant person on this blog, by far!
As for cow shares being for the privileged few. Doesn't it have to start some where? If it weren't for cow shares and thousands of other farms selling/bartering to their neighbors, there wouldn't be a raw milk movement and all we'd be doing is spewing about how unfair the system is with nothing happening. Many folks on here, and else where, have actually DONE something to get REAL food to a lot of people, but because it isn't for everyone yet, it's no good? The folks you so detest are going to take it mainstream while you get in the way of progress.
No, don't blame the labor unions. Never mind the corruption and THEFT through their insurance racket. Small school districts in WI are saving over $1 million each by getting out of the forced insurance scam. Read that, the working folks in that school district are saving that $$$$. Supposedly, people you are so concerned about. LOL!! I know, it doesn't register on your radar, but for those of us that actually pay property tax and have been saddled with that burden, it's a big deal. My property taxes dropped this year. The first time they didn't rise in 19 years!!! Unlike you, I am opposed to ALL corruption, whether it is union or corporate, government, etc..
I posted recently that you need to get out of fantasy land (Madison) and start your own farm or cheese plant. Not go work for a day at one. You deal with the realities of life that the hard working folks on this blog deal with every day. Better yet, why don't a few of your socialist friends buy a farm and show us all how it's done. Doing by example is so much better than sitting on your podium dictating to those actually DOING, how it's supposed to be. That's how I run my farm. It is an example to ALL. I give tours to everyone that wants to learn. I write articles and speak at conferences. I've helped and shared with folks from all walks of life. My actions speak louder than your slander.
tell you what, Bill Anderson = you put up a proposal on Crowd-Source for the amount required to buy a farm, which will then be run strictly on a social-ist model, and I'll send you the first ( silver ) dollar. In return, you can keep us all entertained with instalments on how long you last, farming with other people's capital. Heck ... Call it "Orwell Acres". Yikes, What am I saying?! this is too close to being a pitch for a reality show
Cheyenne,
With all due respect, I think the winner of the intolerance award here should be Mr. Watson.
when Bob Dylan became a Christian, he sang his new song : "you've got to serve somebody"... which is one of the main themes of the Bible. Yuo ARE going to serve SOME body so, "Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve"
Ron, I take your comment, so perhaps I should shorten the latest one to reflect some of the reality of David's post: "Bureaucracy is tyranny."
I don't want to work to hard at this-I'm having trouble following the many postings....anyway I have no suggestions-I just like your original that is so inclusive it should be used on all of our stationary, tag lines and perhaps placed as a sign above door mats that read "Come back with a warrant."
Hmmm--10 great slogans for food rights? Consistent with the Mission of this Blog???
Cheers,
Ron (walking and talking)
we tried that in BC. The health authority then did come back with a Search Warrant. But the legitimacy of that piece of paper became an avenue of defence at trial on charges of contempt of court.
It you want to play the game of 'Due Process of Law' - make sure you know that, first and last, all it's about is : "Who's the Boss?" Compelling bureaucrats to play by their own rule-book is endless, it draws away time, energy $$ from the main thing. Yes, sometimes it's necessary in order to keep functioning / stay out of the clutches of the Beast. In BC, raw milk is labelled and delivered to its owners as a 'cosmetic' 'cause that's what it's been deemed by the bureaucrats. After age 60, my theme is "Whatever works"
Gordon, after age 60 (I'm getting closer every day) my motto will be "Whatever Still works" (even if it's 'cosmetic' milk, as long as it isn't factory/lab created or genetically modified.)
Russ, chicken or egg? Without corporate form, there would be no Dean Foods or Monsanto.
Exactly. Something like Monsanto or Cargill or Dean or Wright Eggs could never exist.
Without massive government command economy intervention, for example creating and enforcing the corporate form, food commodification and globalization could never have existed. Food markets are naturally local/regional, with broader-scale trade just a small appendage of that economy. (That's also true of all other markets, but it's true of food to the greatest extent.)
don't you just love the irony of Marler & Clarke's website using a stock photo of a sign hanging on a rural roadside "RAW MILK FOR SALE" ? their most recent article contains a link to the public hearing via internet, concerning how raw milk dairying should be carried on, in Indiana
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/06/indiana-holding-virtual-public-hea...
Old PT Barnum knew a thing or 2 about the power of publicity. He quipped "I don't care what you say about me, just spell my name right"
Hi Mr. Klein,
Glad to hear you're recovering. Keep it up:)
Warren Meyer, small "c" capitalist, holding forth at coyoteblog.com said this today:
"Welcome to the Fight, Sort Of
June 20, 2012, 9:46 am
...Technocratic idealists ALWAYS lose control of the game. It may feel good at first when the trains start running on time, but the technocrats are soon swept away by the thugs, and the patina of idealism is swept away, and only fascism is left. Interestingly, the technocrats always cry “our only mistake was letting those other guys take control”. No, the mistake was accepting the right to use force on another man. Everything after that was inevitable. ..."
Interesting, No?
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Interesting except for the Big Lie about the trains running on time. For example, even aside from the health, environmental, and socioeconomic ravages of GMOs (and industrial agriculture in general), every practical claim ever made for them - that they increase yield, that they effectively control pests and weeds, that they reduce pesticide use, that they reduce herbicide use, that they use less water, etc. - was a lie. They fail on every such count.
The same is true of corporate technocracy in general. Its alleged successes and efficiencies are based on direct lies and accounting fraud. If the train is running on time, that's by redefining "on time" according to a much longer time frame, while the previous train which was faster and provided much better service was intentionally derailed.
No one should ever concede the lie that technocrats ever succeeded by any measure, even the most instrumental, except for the anti-human measure of helping governments and corporations concentrate wealth and power. That's the one and only true goal of scientism and technocracy. We see that most starkly with the system's assault on food.
NO, not really Ingvar. Fascism is never imposed through idealism. Fascism is a product of desperation. Have you not studied the actual historical circumstances (and intense class struggle) of early 20th century Europe, or do you continue to cling to the fragile Austrian-school myths about what actually caused Fascism?
We are a far cry from Fascism today. I think we are closer to a civilizational collapse scenario (ala the late Roman Empire) than to a Fascism scenario. Don't confuse the two.
and those 2 bundles of rods, wrapped in ligatures, with the Axe-heads sticking out of them = the very symbol of the authority of the Senatus Populusque Romanum, thereafter, Mussolini's brand of fascism = on each side of the Speaker's Chair in the US Senate ? ... oh, just a co-incidence, nothing to worry you little heeads 'bout
Well Well Well...when we tried to get "EcoLabs" to sell us chemicals and provide support as they do to all other creameries in CA...they refused saying that they do not support or sell to Raw Milk Facilities.
Very interesting indeed. This just pisses me off. The local EcoLabs rep is a great guy and extremely knowledgable. Concrete evidence that Monsanto and the FDA have deep roots in corporate America.
Mark
Interesting, Mark. EcoLab is certainly known for the quality of their cleaning chemicals.
I'm sure you could find ways to get their chemicals from other sources, if you are careful about it.
"That you are neither cold nor hot, but lukewarm..."
We see what comes of appeasement and collaboration. Such attempts are always in vain.
yeah, so far, Organic Pastures Dairy only puts out about 1200 gallons per day of raw milk, while Mr McAffee gives the on-going master class on handling bureaucratic snakes, off to the side. Versus ... what was it, again? you said was the quantity being delivered in your neck of the woods, Russ the purist? Perhaps you'd deign to name one single producer of raw milk who's doing it all perfectly, according to your lights? Just one ... with a phone number and/or a website
Anyone who doesn't ramble on and on about how great the government is and how we can "work with them", like the way you and your hero do. Because you both really dream of joining the FDA/Monsanto complex, not of getting rid of them once and for all.
Speaking generally, it makes no difference whether one chooses to be a pro-government flunkey or a pro-corporate/capitalist one. It's the same pathetic appeasement attempt doomed to fail.
The comment above, like every other actual interaction OPDC (or anyone else) has with the system, proves this.
"yeah, so far, Organic Pastures Dairy only puts out about 1200 gallons per day of raw milk"
Except when they shut it down, which seems to be happening more and more often, in spite of all the sucking up to the CDFA. What keeps going wrong?
count on you, the eternal pessimist, to a] - mis-characterize my position (and this time, my motives! ) 180 degrees from what I've stated,
and b ]- evade the question which matters, ie. "do you have a better alternative to how it's being done, now?", I mean, in the real world = the objective reality the rest of us share. Either you provide the name + phone number of someone who's at work, this hour, producing REAL MILK for the local market, in your model, or else admit you're just a dabbler, sent-in to bother those of us who are actually doing the chores. Time to put up or shut up
Our farm is at 49211 Prairie Central Rd. Chilliwack BC. Come on up to the Raw Milk Symposium in Vancouver, October 19/20, or sooner, and I'll show you around = get you-self a few facts to work with, instead of figments of your imagination, which is all I've seen from you, so far on this forum
FYI
http://worldtruth.tv/usda-admits-exterminating-birds-crops-and-bees/
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/No-need-for-labels-on-GE-foo...
Would you like a side order of dirt with that?
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/opinion/lets-add-a-little-dirt-to-our-...
Ora
Good article!!!
Ken
Ora,
Too bad that NYT article you linked us to appeared as an opinion piece, but it had to of course, since Jeff Leach is one of those "alternative" thinkers, apparently believing the crazy notion that modernity does not automatically equal accuracy. Nevertheless, good to see his words in the NYT.
But let's think ahead. What would be the likely outcome if modern research (read "narrow-minded, microscopic, can't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees pseudo-science") does discover that unnatural is, well, unnatural, that food should be grown and not manufactured, and that exposure to nature is better than being walled off from nature? My guess is that the heroes of science, technology, and industry will immediately be handed the wheel of change by government, and proceed post-haste to save us all from our phoney foods and battered immune systems. Pipsqueak media will help by screaming the good news that modern science is moving us forward, and we'll be off to the races again. Of course the transition will be mighty expensive...
(Sure feels good to get my cynical lobe up and exercising first thing in the morning.)