The Two Key Factors That Influenced the Schlangen Jury--Not What Prosecution or Defense Expected
What were the key factors that swayed the Minnesota jury to acquit food club operator and farmer Alvin Schlangen three weeks ago?
Schlangen's lawyer, Nathan Hansen, told me he thought the fact that Minnesota Department of Agriculture investigators in their courtroom testimony were inconsistent in defining "occasional" raw milk sales may have swayed the situation. One investigator said three or more purchases during any month and another said six purchases a month exceeded the bounds of "occasional".
The MDA in its defiant statement issued immediately after the acquittals were announced September 20 suggested that the jurors agonized and could have gone either way except for some unknown arbitrary issue or another--" the fact that the jurors deliberated for as long as they did shows that they found the decision a difficult one to make."
In fact, neither assessment is correct, according to the jury foreman, Eric Hemingway. No, the disagreement on how "occasional" was defined (the Minnesota statute limits dairies to "occasional" sales of raw milk) "wasn't really up there" as an issue in jury deliberations, Hemingway told me in an exclusive interview.
And, contrary to the MDA assessment, the reason the jury took nearly an entire day (spread over parts of two days) was because the judge had provided highly detailed instructions for determining guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt, and we tried to be very methodical in going through his instructions."
In the end, there were two key factors in the decision to acquit, Hemingway explained. First, the fact that no one got sick from Schlangen's food was very important. One of the three misdemeanor charges accused Schlangen of providing "adulterated or misbranded" food, and the absence of illnesses suggested no adulteration. According to Hemingway, a Minneapolis-area investment adviser, "No one was injured...If anyone had gotten sick, that would have weighed on me."
A second important factor was the notion that Schlangen wasn't selling, but rather distributing food he obtained on behalf of members. "He was just connecting up people who wanted this food through his club," according to Hemingway. "People went in with their eyes wide open." And Schlangen "was a very credible witness."
Hemingway indicated that there never was a lot of disagreement among the six-person jury of three men and three women. "Different people had different ways of explaining things to the others. Some played devil's advocate, some did what-ifs." In the end, though, there wasn't a situation where one or two jurors dissented and had to be convinced by the others, he said.
Hemingway tole me that he knew little about the struggle over food rights before he was assigned to the jury, and that food choices aren't a huge deal in his family. He knew vaguely that more people were drinking raw milk, "but I've never had raw milk, I didn't grow up on a farm." He said when it comes to food in his family, "My wife does the shopping and I go to the refrigerator." She shops in area supermarkets.
Nor were other jurors raw milk drinkers. They were a diverse group, including a mechanic, a molecular genetic scientist, a corporate district manager, a marketing consultant, and technical solutions architect, along with Hemingway, the investment adviser.
Hemingway said his focus was on "being impartial. We were very deliberate and thorough." In the end, though, "The state failed to make its case...You have to look at the law. You can't look at your own beliefs of what the law should be...He (Schlangen) was not in violation of the law."
The law wasn't very clear in a number of areas, he noted. For example, the state charge that Schlangen was selling food without a retail license fell short in part because the law isn't specific in requiring food licenses for distributing food privately.
The message from the six jurors--people without a vested interest in the outcome--seemed to be that so long as private food distribution isn't making people sick, the government should steer clear. This is a much different view from that of judges who have ruled in food rights cases up until now.
The Schlangen case is looking more significant each day, and it's only been three weeks since it came through.
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.
Sounds to me as if this jury really did not understand nullification at all. The the defendant just lucked out with these dummies. Their consideration of anyone getting sick has NOTHING to do with this law being a bad law that violates inalienable rights. Even if people had gotten sick they still should have acquitted as that would be a matter for the civil courts. Jurors are not getting any smarter these days.
http://fija.org/document-library/videos/
I think you are right, the jury likely wasn't at all aware of nullification. However, it's misguided to consider them "dummies." This was a group of randomly selected individuals, bright and committed to doing the right thing, who came to the same conclusion about this case--that it was unwarranted. The path they chose to come to their conclusion may not be the one you and others would have chosen, but it demands respect all the same.
If Minnesota law is anything like federal law, then "adulterated" has nothing to do with contamination, but is simply a bureaucratic category. If that's the case, they did indeed nullify without realizing it. I think they do sound rather unintelligent about what they did if they think they punctiliously followed their system-appointed role but really decided based on whether or not anyone got sick, which is irrelevant from the law's point of view.
Which is a perfect example of what a bad citizen the foreman is: "You have to look at the law. You can't look at your own beliefs of what the law should be."
On the contrary, that's exactly what any citizen can do, should do, and has a duty to do. Besides, what does he think cops, prosecutors, judges, government and corporate officers, and the rich do? "Obey the law" except to the extent it's convenient? It is to laugh.
In any case which involves power against the people, any good citizen decides for the people, nullifying if necessary.
Sounds like the Schlangen case is a case for being LISTED by RAWMI. If you do not want to make people sick....then a plan to not make people sick is essential.
Charlotte Smith is the first raw milk dairy in the US to be Officially LISTED by RAWMI. It was fascinating to read her post LISTING comments that she submitted to RAWMI. Her comments will be posted at RAWMI later this week. She is so uplifted by the LISTING process and her consumers have noticed the difference. Her insurance company and raw milk policy is even being positively effected. RAWMI raised her standards from good to stellar and now her hard work and efforts are displayed for all the world to see and appreciate.
http://rawmilkinstitute.net/listed-farmers/listed-farmer-champoeg-creamery/
Inalienablewrights,
Not sure if your assessment of this jury is correct. Perhaps they were very intellegent and very fair. Not everyone sees the world the way the raw milk people see the world. In the courts we are measured by a jury of peers...BUT there are very few raw milk peers sitting in the jury pool. The best we can hope for is smart people that can think for themselves. Illness is the first thing on peoples minds. That is injury and that is serious and that is the focus of liability. No injury...equals no liability.
Think RAWMI....we need a track record of being very serious about standards and safe raw milk. This high set of standards, transparency and ethical practice would in itself will sway juries.
Yes, Mark. Well said.
Folks, I have to leave this fine forum, heading back to the woods (no internet). Nice chatting with yall, hope I didn't talk too much, hope to check in now and then. Gordon Watson, you're a comic genius "the professional multi cult grant getters..." (he cracks me up). Bill Anderson, I sent an email to you (or somebody) I pulled off the internet, 4 lakes something, if you want to converse further, I could send you some things to round out your education, and Deborah Peterson, liked your worm idea, you and others might like this short story a woman sent me, about her experiences on her grandfather's farm as a child, could have some ideas in there for people, to make your farming go more smoothly, It's called An Ordinary Day.
http://curezone.org/blogs/c/am.asp?i=1661612
Live long and prosper. Tom
Dare I say that the REAL reason for this jury nullification is the DEEP CULTURAL ROOTS OF DAIRY FARMING in the upper Midwest.
Minnesota and Wisconsin, in particular, being settled by Germans and Scandinavians, both have a long history of many small, diverse family-run dairy farms. ("Long history" being a relative term here... compared to say Switzerland or France, our history of dairying is pretty short). And both states were hotbeds of progressive populism in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Witness the Minnesota "Democratic Farmer-Labor Party" (a legacy of the populist movement).
Some Minnesota farms also participated in the 1933 Wisconsin Milk Strike. And when Scott Walker's collective bargaining bill was proposed last year, the response from many progressive dairy farmers in Minessota was to offer assistance to our Wisconsin progressive dairy farmers who were rallying in support of worker's rights.
Honestly, you'd be hard pressed to find someone with roots in this part of the US who doesn't know someone, or isn't related to somone, who is or was once a dairy farmer. It is just part of our culture.
My landlord still tells stories about how his father participated in the 1933 Wisconsin milk strike. This kind of class concioussness is not erased easily (but the capitalist ruling class will sure as heck try as hard as they can to erase it)
http://sanmateo.patch.com/articles/recall-list-of-peanut-butter-products...
It just keeps growing.....
Off Topic somewhat:
I talked with an agent of Tripple Crown Feeds the other day and was told that 95% of the alfalfa being planted now is GMO. Has anyone got a feeling for how wide spread GMO alfalfa is and how long before all alfalfa is contaminated?
Thanks
Scott,
Here is some information. Apparently it has been around for quite a while. If animals eat it, they cannot be organic..
http://www.globalresearch.ca/widespread-gmo-contamination-did-monsanto-p...
http://a-homesteading-neophyte.blogspot.com/2011/01/usda-will-allow-wide...
http://www.eco-farm.org/programs/ge/
Off topic:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240732/
Some things just make you go hmmmm
David, I think you're right about the significance of the Schlangen case. Although it's dismaying that part of the jury's focus was on the lack of illness [obviously I don't want anyone to get sick from any food, ever, but it doesn't factor into the legality of the situation], it's positive that they noted private food distribution isn't required to have a license.
I fervently wish the food safety people would concentrate on the real threats to public health - CAFOs, GMOs, centralized food distribution, etc. Yesterday, NPR's "Here and Now" covered Bloomberg Markets' report on how for-profit companies have taken over much of the FDA's food inspection role. The result is that millions of people get sick from food made in facilities that have been "inspected" and deemed "safe."
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2012/10/12/food-safety-inspections
Thanks for the great article about privatization of food inspection, Shana!
I think this just demonstrates how democracy has been systematically undermined by neo-liberal free market policies since the Reagan (counter-)revolution. The food inspections are just par for the course.
That is one of the (many) reasons I feel that RawMI is neccessary, to try to place raw milk on a somewhat level playing field with the corporate food system, by having our own third-party accreditation system, designed by and for raw milk producers.
However, I do have to correct you about one thing. Foodborne illness does factor into the legality of the situation. That is just the way that the modern free-market works. Liability for food safety is on the producers and distributors of food, not on the consumer.
Its fine if you believe that shouldn't be the case, but for now and the foreseeable future, it is the case. If we want to work to change that, I think it ultimately means abolishing the market in food, and replacing it with a "consumer as producer" model, where everyone has the ability and right to raise and grow their own food.
My theory on why the jury even mentioned "lack of illness" is because that is what the main-stream media/govt hammers into the populations minds.
It's ok to consume toxic; GMOs,chemically adulterated foods, over processed foods,etc, but not ok to consume foods as Mother Nature produced.
Did the presence of moms courtroom influenced the jury?
I am forever blown away by the lack of acknowledgement of the existance of the BIGGEST UGLIEST GORRILLA that ever sat in a room.
When speaking of safety....#1 antibiotic resistance to bacteria and
#2. immune status of the general population ...is NEVER addressed!!
When a population of consumers is exposed to a bad ass CAFO PMO FDA bacteria...it is the consumer with the weakened immunity that gets sick. The strong rarely do.
Gorrilla Blindness is a syndrome that is bought and paid for with tons of money. The day that Gorrilla Blindness goes away....OMG.
Or....is it that people are just frikin stupid as hell. Darwin lets stupid bacteria and stupid slow animals be eaten by faster smarter animals. Over population will not be a problem at this rate.
Toxic E. coli, Campylobacter, Salmonella, Listeria...don't care about your gorilla. They are entrenched in small and large farms (including yours). What are you and the CAFOs going to do about it?
Yes and they are no less entrenched in every orifice of the human body as well, so what are you going to do about it apart from chanting the current disruptive, destructive methodology?
It is because of your inflexible, unbending attitude towards organism and people with different approaches to healthful living that we now find ourselves in the mess we are in today.
Mark has bent over backwards attempting to accommodate your kind and its point of view. His approach, although I don’t always agree with it, is significantly more proactive then yours.
You’ve got one hell of a lot of nerve dumping into the farmers lap, a problems which you and your sort have created with your so called science based health and agricultural policies.
Ken
Great post, Ken, and great points,too!
No matter what: the primary responsibility is on us-producers- to supply safe and healthful products. It does fall into our laps. Many of the producers and people that frequent TCP are, IMO, very aware of antibiotic resistance, the general immunity (and state of) national “health”, sustainable agriculture, ecological responsibility and the responsibility of providing safe and healthful products. This entire food rights and eat local movement presupposes that we as farmers embrace the importance of clean facilities, healthy animals, and providing safe products.
Pathogenic microbes are simply something that we need to continually be aware of and implement appropriate hygienic practices for. No excuses, no blaming factors outside of the dairy barn- it starts with us. We have to face reality-Nature has no mercy-there is the reality of nasty microbes, regardless of origin, that producers need to deal with.
The appropriate answer to going pathogen questions should start with practices that keep products clean and safe. And those producers who are aware of “good health”, IMO, have a higher level of responsibility-and consumers who demand food for healthful living-have a higher level of responsibility to demand such products from their eat local producers. Both require education and accepting responsibility—And there is nothing wrong with this.
"The appropriate answer to going pathogen questions should start with practices that keep products clean and safe. And those producers who are aware of “good health”, IMO, have a higher level of responsibility-and consumers who demand food for healthful living-have a higher level of responsibility to demand such products from their eat local producers. Both require education and accepting responsibility—And there is nothing wrong with this."
Ron, I agree with this.
Thank you Ron Klein.
As a cheese maker, I fully agree. I go to great measures to keep my cheese free of pathogens. Excellent hygiene on the cheese factory production floor is not an option. It is an obligation.
Well Ron I trust your not suggesting that I am advocating that farmers not take responsibility!
It is downright frustrating when MW and the system she endorses who, rather own up to a problem created by their regulatory action or inaction continue to harass farmers who are conscientiously trying to produce a healthy food for their customers.
Farmers and consumers such as Alvin Schlangen, Michael Smytt and Max Kane are the ones bearing the brunt of a regulatory system that is out of touch and out of control.
Why do they not encourage labeling of GMO foods?
What gives them the right to usurp parental authority thus forcing the injection of vaccine toxoids into children?
Why do they continue to endorse antibiotics, arsenic and the likes in livestock feed?
Soil biology is strongly disrupted by glyphosate and is toxic to many beneficial micro- and macro-organisms including earthworms. Why do they continue to sanction such a product that nurtures the virulence of bacteria then turn around and say to the farmer “what are we going to do about it.
Ken
The last sentence should have read. Why do they continue to sanction such a product that nurtures the virulence of bacteria then turn around and say to the farmer “what are you going to do about it”.
Its called the free market, Ken.
When producers are alienated from consumption, and vice-versa, these kinds of problems arise. Its not public health's fault, they are just dealing with the problems created by an alienated economy & society.
I would say, even the raw milk market is alienated, though to a lesser extent. Most raw milk consumers (even the ones who drive out to the farm to get it) are not involved in the production of the raw milk. That's where the public health issues come into play. When you live and work on/around dairy farms, you have a natural immunity to potentially harmful bacteria in the raw milk. When you come out once a week, spend maybe 20 or 30 minutes filling milk jars and chatting with the farmer, you don't have that kind of immunity.
The problem is exacerbated by urban/suburban parents who then go on to feed raw milk to young children who have very little exposure to dairy animals and farm enviroment.
There's a reason that raw milk CHEESE is a safer product. Lactic acid fermentation selects against pathogens. Cheese is the best way to deliver raw milk to commercial markets, IMHO. Fluid raw milk is just too risky and too perishible. I drink raw milk, but I sometimes question the logic of this raw milk movement, because its often irrational and unscientific.
No Bill it is called human vice. All political and socioeconomic systems are subject to this vice. Socialism is no exception and I am inclined to think it is worse for as Alexander Solzhenitsyn states socialism is a movement that “defies logic” and is based on an “emotional impulse, a kind of worldly religion”.
The consumer’s literal involvement with the production of raw milk although complementary to their immunity is unnecessary.
Even if they don’t step foot on the farm the consumer’s immune system is actively and naturally involved in that process of acquiring immunity when they drink a glass of raw living milk. Is that not what people, who are experiencing the benefits of raw milk are trying to tell us?
Cheese although I enjoy it and take pleasure in consuming the many varieties it can in no way replace the diverse nutritional and probiotic value of raw milk.
The problem farmers and consumers are faced with manifests itself with a system that preoccupies itself with control based on the unnatural, forceful and toxic manipulation of life.
Farmers’ backs will continue to be up against the wall despite their cleanliness in an attempt to produce a safe and healthy product. As Dave correctly stated, “the controlling paradigm of microbiophobia makes it almost impossible for farmers to do that, by prohibiting them from engaging the very mercy Nature provides”.
Ken
Ken, please consider Albert Einstein's eessay on the question of "Why Socialism?", written in 1949, but still as relevant tody as it was 63 years ago:
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism
From the article you referenced Einstein states, “The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.”
What is the basis for this economic anarchy? Is it not greed? Is greed not a human vice?
Socialism is the opposite extreme of capitalism and has also demonstrated its ability to be vulnerable to human vice.
Einstein’s solution to the problem is not so much a solution but rather an alternative that has already been tried and proven to be equally oppressive.
Einstein appears convinced that there is only “one way” yet his description of that way “the establishment of a socialist economy”, relies non the less, on the prevalence of human virtue, temperance, justice, courage and wisdom.
What he fails to state however is that socialist economies are equally predisposed as well to acquired human vice, pride, avarice, lust, envy, gluttony, anger and sloth.
This statement and the following questions presented by Einstein are indeed pertinent, “The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn states, “If we follow the explosive sequence of socialist doctrines and socialist utopias preached in Europe—by Thomas More, Campanella, Winstanley, Morelli, Deschamps, Babeuf, Fourier, Marx, and dozens of others—we cannot help but shudder as they openly proclaim certain features of that terrible form of society.”
http://www.anglicansamizdat.net/wordpress/alexander-solzhenitsyn/alexand...
From an address at Harvard entitled “A World Split Apart”, Solzhenitsyn also states, “Having experienced applied socialism in a country where the alternative has been realized, I certainly will not speak for it. The well-known Soviet mathematician Shafarevich, a member of the Soviet Academy of Science, has written a brilliant book under the title Socialism; it is a profound analysis showing that socialism of any type and shade leads to a total destruction of the human spirit and to a leveling of mankind into death
Ken
Ken, I don't have a lot of time to respond to your claims about socialism. But I will say that the experience of the Soviet Union can only be properly understood in the historical context of World War I and the Russian Civil War which followed it.
Perhaps the most important thing we learned from the Soviet experience is that socialism cannot be imposed from the top-down by a vangaurdist elite (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, etc), particularily in a pre-modern society such as Russia was in 1917. The USSR is more properly understood as a type of state-run capitalism that it is a form of socialism.
True socialism must germinate from the bottom-up, through the collective initiative of the working class, in an effort to abolish the social institutions which lead to greed, oppression, and inequality. Institutions such as corporate private property, wage-labor, debt-slavery, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc, etc...
Socialism is, ultimately, a movement to abolish private property (while preserving the right to personal possessions) and also, more importantly, abolish violence -- both organized violence (i.e. the state, and extra-state gangs/militias) and chaotic violence (petty crime) by addressing the root causes of those phenomenon.
I do not think that human nature is static, as you suggest with your constant references to "vice." Human nature and human behavior are highly maleable, and are the result of situation and context in which humans find themselves. We are capable of incredible & wonderful things just as much as we are capable of atrocities and horrible things.
Socialism seeks to create the conditions where EVERYONE (not just the privileged property-owning class) can accomplish incredible & wonderful things.
With that, I would encrouage you to read this Noam Chomsky essay, on the difference between the Soviet Union and true socialism:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm
Sorry, one typo:
The USSR is more properly understood as a form of state-run capitalism THAN a form of socialism.
I am, of course, not Ken. But since you mentioned the name of Chomsky, may I point out that Benjamin Kerstein, Michael Totten, and perhaps others take a dim view of Noam Chomsky’s opinion’s value as a guide for anyone on anything is this world. To wit:
Benjamin Kerstein the author of Diary of an Anti-Chomskyite (ISBN-13: 978-1477645352 Published June 12, 2012) in explaining to interviewer Michael Totten why portions of three years were spent creating this book said that perhaps the most important reason is that N.C. “makes people stupid.” “He allows people to be comfortable with their prejudices and their hatreds, and he undercuts their ability to think in a critical manner.” Another reason for this book is that “Chomsky is an absolutely shameless liar,” “master of the argument in bad faith,” and says “anything in order to get people to believe in him;” and, “worse, says anything in order to shut people up who disagree with him.” “How he acts with ordinary students who question what he says, it's quite horrifying. He simply abuses them in a manner I can only describe as sadistic.”
The interview concludes: (Benjamin Kerstein) “In the case of Chomsky, however, I think we have one of the most egregious cases. He didn't just support an ideology, he essentially created it, or at least played a major—perhaps the decisive—role in doing so. And there isn't just one case of lending his skills to justifying horrendous acts of political evil, there are many. And as I noted before, he has never owned up to any of them and as far as I can tell never will. What we're looking at with Chomsky is a man who has dedicated essentially his entire public life to political evil. I think we are justified in calling such a person a monster.”
This interview, “Noam Chomsky: The Last Totalitarian, 20 August 2012” is at http://www<dot>worldaffairsjournal.org/blogs/michael-j-totten.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Well, Mr. Odegaard, that's an awfully one-sided critique of Chomsky, who has been one of the most articulate and elegant critics of American foriegn policy atrocities for over 40 years. I would hope that opposition to war and imperialism is a position that the anarchist & socialist left holds in common with the libertarian and paleo-conservative right. Perhaps you have just proven otherwise. I certainly would hope you don't share in the neo-conservative/neo-liberal belief that American empire is a force for good in the world.
I certainly agree that Chomsky is not correct about everything. For example, his linguistic theory (The Chomsky Hierarchy) which made him prominent as an acedemic has had important elements debunked, yet he clings to them.
But on the question of the USSR he is correct. The Bolshevik leadership were counter-revolutionaries, who destroyed what seeds of true socialism existed in Russia, in their quest for political power. A study of the Kronstadt rebellion reveals this:
http://libcom.org/history/1921-the-kronstadt-rebellion
Bill
The problem rest with how one wishes to “create the conditions” and “abolish” this or “abolish” that.
You state, “Socialism is, ultimately, a movement to abolish private property, abolish violence… by addressing the root causes of those phenomenon…socialism seeks to create the conditions where EVERYONE (not just the privileged property-owning class) can accomplish incredible & wonderful things”.
This is beginning to sound an awful lot like a top down mentality.
So what is “human nature”, what is the “root cause of those phenomena” and why are we “capable of incredible & wonderful things just as much as we are capable of atrocities and horrible things”. Is it not a struggle between vice and virtue? Is it something that can be regulated into submission via the rule of law and if so how meaningful is that?
Human behavior is indeed malleable yet our struggles with vice and virtue is a constant. Shysters and tyrants take advantage of this fact.
It appears humans are destined to bounce back and forth between two extreme ideologies until eventually they come to realize that neither provides the solution for their concerns. The only meaningful answer to this predicament is when all individual freely respond with love and forgiveness and treat each other as equals.
Ken
I'm not sure what you mean by vice and virtue, Ken. I suspsect that our ideas of these things are very different. Your last sentence, in particular, is a bit hypocritical, since you don't seem to view public health workers as equals.
"Vice", as far as I can tell, simply means whatever behavior the religious and/or economic powers-that-be consider subversive to their power. "Virture" likewise, is behavior which conforms to the existing social expections -- expectations which are the creation of the ruling class, neccessary for them to maintain social control over the populace.
Personally, I consider religion to be a vice of sorts. It is a poor substitute for the hard work neccessary to build an egalitarian society. Religion makes people comfortable with their prejudices (be they nationalist, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc... prejudices) and keeps them ignorant and oppressed.
That's not to say that spirituallity can't be a tool for liberation. But its not the same thing as religion.
Bill
If a wife and husband have a disagreement does that mean that they are not treating each other as equal?
We are all equal despite our disagreements.
Ken
Ken,
The disagreement between husband and wife may be between percieved equals. But perception is not always reality. Marriage is a patriarchal institution that originates in the male desire to control female sexuality so that the male can be certain of paternity, for the purposes of inheritance (private property).
I think Emma Goldman had it right when she drew the distinction between love and marriage. If a relationship is based on love and nothing else (read: not private property), then there is no need for the institution of marriage (regardless of the particular form it takes -- i.e. religious marriage, marriage by private contract, or modern secular marriage sancitifed by the bourgeois state). Here is Emma Goldman's take on it:
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl_eg_anb_marriage_love.htm
I would certainly agree with you that people can be equals despite disagreements. However, since we live in a society with a high degree of inequality, it would seem that some people's opinions matter more than others. Those who weild more power, also use that power to promote the ideologies which best serve their particular class interest.
This is the essential historical insight of socialism -- also known as the materialist conception of history. Marx summed it up well in this essay:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm
Also, Ken, a soft surface-ripened cheese has as much if not more pro-biotic value as fluid raw drinking.
I would not characterize human behavior as "vice". It is only priests and politicians who seek to control people who wish to characterize our behavoir as "vice". The only vice is privilege and inequality.
Ken, David does need that "like" button. You are so right!
Wow, what is the govt doing about all the contamination on the cafos and other huge farms and processing plants? Apparently nothing...or letting them monitor themselves....what a sick joke. (pun intended) They are a failed entity.
All about the $$$$$ who is sleeping with who....
http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/CORENetwork/ucm320413.htm#recalled
"October 4, Sunland Inc. expanded its ongoing recall to include all products made in the Sunland nut butter production facility between March 1, 2010 and September 24, 2012."
Made from OVER a year ago? Indeed those inspectors were on the ball......NOT.
Per another: 'The FDA is in the service of agri-business and big pharma. Fully 1/3 of their funding comes from service fees paid by the companies they are supposed to be regulating. They are nothing more than a rubber stamp to lull the American populace. They approved putting an all beef label on pink slime. They just want you to think it is an underfunding situation so that you won't blame them when things go awry. '
They are a total waste of tax payers money.
http://www.businessinsurance.org/10-biggest-food-recalls-in-u-s-history/
That's only 10 out of how many?
To keep in mind the broader human terrain, may I point out a comment posted today at the maverickphilosopher?
““Those who hold that the only knowledge is scientific knowledge will not be content to restrict themselves to such knowledge; they will be tempted to pass off as scientific what is not. The prime and best example is scientism itself: it is passed off as scientific when it is a philosophical thesis with all the rights, privileges, and debilities pertaining thereunto.”
(Details in Scientism category.)”
The fraud that is socialist utopian hope is elsewhere referenced. When I come across it, I’ll point it out.
The reason for the importance I place in these philosophical and theological areas is that they pertain to the foundations of society; in other words, they dictate much that goes on in each of our day-in and day-out lives without regard to whether or not we will admit it, whether or not we even recognize it at all. The topics dealt with here, at TCP, food and the law, are of the same root-impact quality. To build soundly on a shaky foundation is not a possibility. Build we do. Every day. And that, on the foundation of our life, whatever’s down there. Ditto for our society. Ditto for our culture.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
"The fraud that is socialist utopian hope is elsewhere referenced."
Not sure what you mean, but what do you think works? There's no greater fraud than the "competition" ideology, historically and objectively. It's never done anything but create artificial scarcity and destruction. Nature and labor provide abundance, and psychopaths want to destroy the vast majority of this abundance so they can monopolize a small portion of it. The evidence of anthropology is that throughout humanity's natural history cooperation and community exchange have been the predominant practices. Meanwhile "trickle-down" has never worked in any form. If anything, it works the other way around - you start by cooperating and giving, and that brings personal "profit" (in any form) as well. Today's truly innovative farmers and other natural entrepreneurs understand that.
Everything people think is "normal" today is actually, by any natural or historical measure, insane, and is 100% dependent on cheap, plentiful fossil fuels. I guess you could say humanity is like someone who came upon a huge drug stash and, in a moment of weakness, went on a hideous binge. Part of us wants to stop, but the addiction impetus remains so powerful that the junkie will probably continue to binge until the stuff runs out.
The natural world works from the bottom up. When people realize this they will realize that society works from the bottom up. Rudolf Steiner tried to say this years ago when he said that people must realize that the nerves that sense our environment are the same nerves that initiate the action to move.The nerves in our finger feel heat and move the finger away from the heat. A signal does NOT travel to the brain and wait for the signal from the brain to tell it to move away . The heart is not a pump.Each individual cell is pumping in harmony with all of the other cells. That is how our blood moves. People should not work for money. People should work for the joy of helping each other.When enough people realize this,health will return to the earth.
miguel
Great point, Miguel.
That is precisely the agenda of the radical anarcho-syndicalist organization to which I belong, the Industrial Workers of the World (aka "The Wobblies")
http://www.iww.org/en/culture/official/preamble.shtml
The preamble to our constitution reads (in part):
Instead of the conservative motto, "A fair day's wage for a fair day's work," we must inscribe on our banner the revolutionary watchword, "Abolition of the wage system."
It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggle with capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old.
Milky Way...you missed my point entirely.
My point had to do with the common content of media news and the general discussions of FOOD SAFETY.
When food safety is discussed, it is never discussed in a balanced format. It is regarded as a blame game on one part of the food chain.... The farmer.
There is never any responsibility placed on PHARMA or CAFO antibiotic abuse that created the super bugs that can be found every where now.....
There is never a discussion of the pitiful immune depressed status of the Standard American Immune System. An immune system that is so depressed, that it appears as a welcome mat for any old bad bug that wants to ravage you.
That is my point. I agree....all of us farmers need to be very very concerned and diligent to control bad bugs and encourage good bugs and produce safe foods as best we can. But our efforts are only one leg of the multiple legged stool.
The other legs are broken and are never discussed for a reason. $$$$$$$$$$$$ The FDA will take no blame. PHARMA and Monsanto want no blame.
Milky Way....when was the last time you did anything to help increase the immunity of those in America. When was the last time that you sat in a Senate hearing and testified against the FDA hit Vet from DC that defended use of antibiotics in Animal feeds.
I have done both. I encouage you to do the same prior to spewing your empty tilted lopsided biased Gorrilla Blind opinions.
Now this is an eye opener! Perhaps this is what regulators in North America are trying to avoid.
http://www.cityfarmer.org/milkKenya.html
“It is now official, more raw milk than processed milk is consumed not only in the rural areas in Kenya, but also in the urban centers including Nairobi, Kenya's capital city where 80% of all milk consumption is unprocessed.”
Ken
Sounds like the Kenyan government should re-focus its energies from trying to stamp out the raw fluid milk market to building up a progressive cheese making infrastructure.
Regarding this:
“Pathogenic microbes are simply something that we need to continually be aware of and implement appropriate hygienic practices for. No excuses, no blaming factors outside of the dairy barn- it starts with us. We have to face reality-Nature has no mercy-there is the reality of nasty microbes, regardless of origin, that producers need to deal with.”
In this I am in (rare, but strong) disagreement with Ron.
Many so-called pathogens are likely inside and on Ron and me and many others all the time, without host illness. Even our microbiophobic medical paradigm acknowledges this. Also, it is perfectly clear that rich, diverse microbial life--the very life that the medical paradigm seeks to reduce and control--enhances vigor and health in soils, plants, and animals. Why is it so? Well, it happens to be the very wonderful and graceful “mercy” of Nature. On the other side is our over-confident, short-sighted meddling, our relentless focus on sterility, which has denatured that mercy. It is WE that are at fault, not a nasty, merciless environment.
If it needs to be said, let me be clear that farmers should of course strive for clean, healthful products. But the controlling paradigm of microbiophobia makes it almost impossible for farmers to do that, by prohibiting them from engaging the very mercy Nature provides. Instead, the paradigm insists that every perceived pathogen at perceived location be destroyed, with little to no regard for collateral damage. (Mark's description of how he isolates chicken workers from dairy workers at lunchtime, and Bill's suggestion to develop virtually sterile airlocks between sections of dairy operations shows how nutty this whole thing can get. There is no logical endpoint to that kind of thinking other than totally sterile everything, which anybody with a functioning brain must know is death.)
I want no part of what the controlling paradigm defines as “appropriate hygiene”--the broad-spectrum killers, the vaccinations, the chlorine, the monoculture (AKA isolation of organisms), the manipulated seeds, the centralized decision-making, the relentless downplaying of what all that has done to our immune systems and to our faith in the love of God and the exquisite beauty of the planet He created for us. I want none of it. It's dangerous baloney, and has proven itself to be a colossally inhumane failure.
Now, for the record, here are some of the hygienic practices I employ on my own little farm: Generous exposure to sunlight, cleansing soap and water, attention to soil worm count, attention to the sweetness of my vegetables, fruits, and milk, generous mulching, joy in diversity, honest macrobiologic observation, charity, and forgiveness.
How do you remove milk stone and mineral buildups from your milk handling equipment, Dave? Unless there is something you didn't say above, or you are using an acid soap, you will probably start to have some milkstone buildups over time, which will contribute to milk hygiene issues. No?
Vinegar works just fine for any container that you can scrub with a brush or scouring pad.It won't work in a pipeline,which is just as well. If you need a pipeline,maybe you are in a hurry or have too many cows to put quality first.
miguel
Actually, Miguel, vinegar will work at removing milkstone in a pipeline if you allow the pipeline to soak in vinegar between two milkings.
Also, its worth pointing out that peroxyACETICacid is an FDA-approved dairy sanitizer, which eliminates the need for the "red acid" (phosphoric and sulfuric acids) and which breaks down into hydrogen peroxide and vinegar -- harmless organic compounds.
An initial rinse with tepid water minimizes milkstone, and most important, all the surfaces of my equipment are accessible for cleaning with a stiff brush, or my favorite, a scrubbing pad. Remember Bill, I milk by hand, into buckets. It is no way to make a lot of money, but the entire process, including cleaning, is effective and enjoyable.
Milking machines and pipelines do, as you suggest, tend to create milkstone problems. Those who have them (and who are sensitive to the difficulties with hygiene) consider acid washes a necessary evil (most consider them merely necessary). I would just point out that there are negative secondary health effects related to those acids as well as to the milkstone, that go essentially unrecognized. They fall into the category of "externalities"--costs that are real, but not linked to the price of the product. Honest assessment of those externalities mitigates the perception of hand milking as too inefficient for "real" dairying.
Most grade-A dairies I have seen use a "tepid" (~110F) water rinse in their pipelines, before the alkaline caustic wash.
The most important function of this rinse is to melt the butterfat. Its effectiviness at removing milkstone will depend on the water type. In Southern Wisconsin, we have very hard water. Milkstone will become a major problem if it is not proactively dealth with through an acid rinse or acid sanitizer.
I certainly appreciate your point about the value of a stiff brush or scrubbing pad. I clean all of my cheese making equipment by hand. But I also use an acid rinse on my moulds, especially the moulds used for lactic-curd cheeses (high-acid/low-pH cheeses, so there is a lot of calcium leaving in the whey, that can cause milkstone buildups).
I realize this is off topic for raw dairy... http://www.wavy.com/dpps/health/healthy_living/this-years-flu-vaccine-gu...
Don't you just love the way they word things. As a senior I apparently have a target on my back as I fall into the category of requiring being targeted.
"child deaths from flu have made headlines in recent years — the U.S. counted 34 pediatric deaths last year "
How many millions of children are there in the US? Of those millions of children, 34 died from flu. What other health, nutrition issues where these children subjected to? What type of environment were they living is? Many unanswered questions. With only 34 deaths out of millions, that shows that the flu is not lethal as the govt/media spews and the flu vaccine apparently not necessary (I've never thought it was needed)
The govt fear mongering needs to be countered with bullet statements facts. It is the same in regards to raw dairy consumption.
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v04n17.shtml
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/27/flu-vaccine-not-...
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm The cdc is vague on the effectiveness.
Wonderfully said Dave...agree wholeheartedly.
The real trick....
To build a viable educated mass of consumers that institute change by "dollar voting" and change of laws when the market builds to a critical mass. This initial market building must grow under the tiranical regulations that seeks to replace. Not easy...for sure. In fact it is damn hard. All the rules and regs and natural living concepts are in conflict.
Yet....change will only happen by feeding people and education....while enduring the greed based stupidy of the current profit driven sickness paradigm.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/buffalo-mozzarella-craig-rami...
I had Buffalo mozzarella while in Italy, nothing here in the states compares.
Mark,
You sound and act like a snake oil salesman. I'm looking up this milkstone stuff. And, a potion the druids told me about.
Clearly, the lawmakers and media are open to discuss science-based food safety policy in comparison.
Is that why commodity grains, processing, GMOs, and subtherapeutic antibiotics are the foundation of the US agricultural planned economy, because lawmakers are "open" about science-based food safety? You'll have to tell better lies than that to beat even druids, let alone educated citizens.
Russ, spot on!
MW: I will listen to pretty much anyone talk about pretty much anything, time permitting. I do not find you credible. I think that others who comment here and have responded to you time and again, have got your number. Have a nice PC, "scientific," day.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Point taken. And may you have a nice anti-science day.
Milky Way, picking and choosing data in an attempt to support a preconceived notion and then in the end ignoring the results is not science.