Hartmann, in Manly Gesture, Sacrifices Himself to MN Prosecutors to Save His Family; Rawesome Retrospective
In the end, Michael Hartmann made the best deal he could--if he was going to save his family--when he pleaded guilty Monday to two misdemeanors in connection with sales of raw milk and other foods, and agreed to pay a fine of $585. Seven other misdemeanor charges were dismissed in the process.
According to news accounts, he was placed under non-supervised parole for six months and ordered to comply with all state labeling and licensing regulations.
In the end, also, Hartmann went alone to his fate. He didn't want supporters present, and he has many. Perhaps he went alone because this particular court case had become a private matter between himself and the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. There was no glory in copping a plea, so why have supporters waste their time and energy coming, he may have reasoned. (He hasn't been talking to the media, nor has he wanted media attention when I've spoken with him over the last year.)
So why make a deal with the enforcers he has challenged for years? There obviously was no fear on his part in dealing with the brutes at the MDA. The fear was for his family. You see, the MDA had gotten the local prosecutor to file similar misdemeanor charges against his wife, Diane, and his brother, Roger, and an associate--essentially taken them legally hostage. And no way was Michael Hartmann going to let them be exposed to the ongoing pressures of a trial and possible jail time so the MDA thugs could say they got someone in the Hartmann family.
So the deal was basically a way to protect his family from the MDA's ravages, according to associates, something he has been intent on doing since the matter first came up earlier this year. Being the man he is, he decided to sacrifice himself on behalf of his family--the deal also provided for dropping all the charges against his family members.
Hartmann was in a box of sorts, stemming from eight illnesses from E.coli O157:H7 that Minnesota public health authorities linked to his dairy in May 2010. It would have been very difficult for him to gain an acquittal so long as the prosecutors could bring any of those made ill as witnesses in the trial against him. There were also accusations of four illnesses the following fall from campylobacter and three from cryptosporadium, a parasite.
Through it all, Hartmann has steadfastly denied his milk made anyone sick. He argued that tests showing the presence of pathogens on his farm never showed up in any of many tests done on his milk. Moreover, dozens of his loyal customers say they have never met anyone who became ill from his milk, and most continue to drink it without concern. (There is some interesting commentary from supporters at one Minnesota news site.)
I know there are those who feel Hartmann has gotten what he deserves via the prosecutions of himself and his family. Just keep in mind that almost no food producer anywhere in the U.S. gets hit with criminal charges in connection with food-borne illnesses. Even owners of Peanut Corp. of America, whose peanut butter in 2008 killed seven and sickened more than 200, haven't been prosecuted, and with a five year statute of limitations rapidly approaching, it seems unlikely they will be. According to food safety lawyer Bill Marler, "in 15 years of involvement in every major foodborne illness case, there have been only a handful of prosecutions and fewer convictions."
The reality is that such cases alleging illness are mostly adjudicated in civil court. According to local media, there is a suit against Michael Hartmann in civil court in Minnesota by the parents of a two-year-old boy who was allegedly sickened by Hartmann's milk, seeking $50,000 of medical expenses.
Criminal charges in this case were way outside the bounds of real-life practices in this country...unless you are the MDA and you have a personal score to settle with a farmer you detest.
**
On the subject of copping a plea, Victoria Bloch, one of the original Rawesome Three, has an interesting retrospective about her experience as a criminal defendant on the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund site.
About her decision eventually to accept a plea deal, she says, "The day before the (pretrial) hearing, the D.A. offered me a misdemeanor plea that I could live with (essentially, having sold one jar of unlabelled milk); Sharon was offered a separate misdemeanor just before the start of the hearing. We had both wanted to be vindicated at a trial, before a jury of our peers. But we had to take into account fiscal reality, as well as the ongoing toll on our families and ourselves. So we each accepted the plea offered, ending the saga with a sigh instead of a yell, but grateful for an end nonetheless."
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.
Did the funds from FTCLDF provide legal representation to Sharon Palmer and Stewart?
Good Lord, one of palmers workers said she obtained goats milk from another farm......outsourcing? What was that word Mark used? Apparently she bought a lot out of Chino...http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/news_wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Bloch-T... arsenic and mercury?
The race traitors who run Ham-merica, now, learned the technique of taking family members hostage, as a way to grind-down a dissident into admitting "guilt", from their kinsmen who operated that political science experiment, brand-named = Union of Socialist Soviet Republics.
Oh please Watson. Spare us your ridiculous McCarthyist nonsense. America today has more economic disparity and inequality that at any time in the 20th century.
For those not paying attention, Hartmann might have been able to avoid criminal prosecution if he 1) hadn't hospitalized little children with E. Coli, and/or 2) had retained food product liability insurance so that, in the event of an outbreak, at least the parents could be compensated for their medical costs.
Although, clearly, MDA was being overzealous in their approach, perhaps there was a good reason for it. The prudent raw milk producer will learn from Hartmann's mistakes and not repeat them, hopefully.
I used to bake my oatmeal, but the heat killed all the living healing properties. Since going raw oatmeal, I'm not bald and have no cavities.
You could try soaking raw oatmeal in cold water for a few days then strain and drink the oatmeal water. It is a great way to satisfy ones thirst.
For a little added nourishment add soured raw raw milk to the strained oatmeal with some maple syrup or honey. No cooking required!
Here are some interesting ideas on how to use soured raw milk.
Note; Pasteurized milk is not an option due to its putrefying qualities.
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/101-uses-for-soured-raw-milk/
Ken
Ah, Ken...MW is being antagonistic & obnoxious! I'm not sure why MW is finding fault with the postings about baked oatmeal.
Signing off. I'm saddened and nauseated like AV, but for different reasons. Portraying public health as the bad guy after Hartmann sickens people? How's the child with HUS doing? Who cares the raw milk movement says...focus on poor farmer who is subject to no accountability in this movement.
Goodbye.
Sorry to see you leave Milky Way. I certainly agree with you. The most powerless victims here are not the farmers (although they certainly occupy a low spot on the totem pole compared to most Americans). The most powerless victims in this situation are the children.
You have to appreciate the irony of the so-called "pro-life" idiots that dominate this movement. Though they are supposedly for individual rights, they oppose women's right to choose. They are supposedly for the rights of the unborn, but they don't seem to care one iota once the child is out the womb. The child is becomes the private property of the parent -- a slave, in essence.
Such is the logic of this fundamentalist "libertarianism" that manifests itself in the raw milk movement. The ultimate agenda is to completely disposs women and children of their rights. It is a bastion of patriarchal "Judeo-Christian" private property.
Please see the below link. It is truly scary the direction that the American right-wing and raw milk movement are moving in:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/charlie-fuqua-arkansas-candidat...
So now you are saying parents are slave masters? Does that include mothers, even though we are dispossessed of our rights?
I'm not going to make assumptions about whether or not you have offspring, but that's one of the weirdest opinions I've ever heard. No doubt it's better for the child to become the property of the Government.
Somebody tell me why I'm bothering to respond to this rubbish...
Hi Mama,
Not saying that. Just saying that there is a grey area here, where some leadership of this movement (not naming names) seem to think it is a good idea to feed "sweet" fluid raw milk to young children without any established hygiene standards. In fact, they seem to want to fight against these hygiene standards.
As Mary Martin explains below, this can have life-long consequences for the child. It would seem, therefore, that the child is paying for the parent's mistakes.
I hope you would agree that there are safer ways to deliver the nutrients in raw milk than sweet fluid raw milk. Cheese is one option. Kefir/yogurt is another. And these can be as much (if not moreso) pro-biotic than raw milk, but with the risk factors greatly reduced.
"where some leadership of this movement (not naming names) seem to think it is a good idea to feed "sweet" fluid raw milk to young children without any established hygiene standards. In fact, they seem to want to fight against these hygiene standards."
Really? Please site where this was posted. I'd like to read it.
Bumping this up again, as it is a good question from Sylvia. Undocumented assertions, accusations, and the like that seek to impugn and injure people and their credibility and make judgments about them should be called out, or evidence provided to supports such claims if it there is any.
Hi Bill,
I buy "raw" milk for my family and we all drink it,including pregnant me. My midwife also buys from the same farm. I don't depend on the bureaucratic hoops the farmers have jumped through to protect us. I depend on the fact that I go to the farm each time I buy milk and see the condition of the place and the animals. Also, that these people see their customers all the time and know us by name. Plus, I have done research and thought a lot about potential risk vs. benefit of this choice. We all need to overcome the passive consumer attitude we've been taught. I'll confess I need to be far more aggressive about asking questions of the farmers I patronize. As long as we remain docile and ignorant, we will constantly be courting potential disaster, no matter what kinds of laws and restrictions are made.
Ironically, the conventional medical position towards "raw milk" cheese consumption by pregnant women is hostile. Anything you read in your average OB-GYN office will warn you away from this substance, so I dunno Bill-it must be dangerous!
I think parents are only too aware that their children will pay for the parent's mistakes. It can actually be paralyzing if you dwell on it. That's why so many these days prefer to let "professionals" and "experts" do all their thinking and decision-making for them. It's so much easier, and then if something goes wrong you can blame others.
I second you, Mama!
Yeah, I know Deborah. I'm the bad guy here (just like Milky Way) because I think outside of the narrow-minded right-wing ideological box of this movement, and try to do the right thing for the larger cause rather than just for myself.
Rather than go along with the group-think, I stand up for what is right. Never mind that Joel Salatin is a sexist patriarchal capitalist pig (HE EVEN SAYS SO HIMSELF!) or that Michael Hartmann hospitalized little children with E. Coli O157:H7 and refuses to own up to it.
I guess I just need to pray to Jesus, have a lots of little babies, and hope that God doesn't comdenmn them all to miserable lives because of my stupidity, ignorance, and selfishness, hey? That would seem to be the agenda of much of this movement (though certainly not all of it) as far as I can tell.
I know, I'm the bad guy here. Go ahead. Tell me again. Joel Salatin is such a wonderful person. Never mind the thousands of PROGRESSIVE sustainable and organic farmers who slave away on their farms, without nearly the national media attention that Salatin, and by the way, actually bother to MINERALIZE THEIR SOILS.
no, you're not the bad guy, Mister Anderson ... rather, a simpleton locked-in to adolescent stupidity, lacking the honesty to admit the utter bankruptcy of every experiment in social-ism.
As for the farmers who're actually out there this hour ... the brains and the brawn of the Campaign for REAL MILK ... I wonder if you have the intellectual integrity to admit that they're all white Christians - the very people whom you all-too-obviously despise. Practicing what our God directs us to do - being good stewards of this Land of Milk and Honey / treating our cattle humanely : "the good man careth for his beast". If you can find one single dairyfarmer who's producing raw milk for human consumption for the community at large ( other than just to her immediate family) who is NOT a Christian, she'd be the exception proving the rule.
The demographics are overwhelming ... this movement is : white people, remembering our heritage - now demanding quality instead of quantity : clean food rather than filth ... the nation repudiating the disastrous experiment social-ism, since 1913
As a Calvinist, I don't give a rat's rectum if you fly off the face of the Earth to your reward in some socialist Elysian fields, still, it is my Christian duty to warn all-concerned that you and your "progressive" pals have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Exhibit One being, your guiding light, Eric Hobsbawn, ... a genius, yet he went to his grave refusing to de-Stalin-ize. Could not get out of the box into which he'd locked himself at age 13. In an interview on BBC, he said that the liquidation of millions of people in the USSR by the commies, would have been justifiable homicide, had social-ism only worked!
Bill,
Does it need to be said that everyone understands that desire for good is laudable?
The problem is not your professed wish that people live happy, healthful lives, but that you are continually clamoring, fussing, and unforgiving. It is often impossible to find even a hint of love in your comments here. You seem therefore far more interested in having the last word in argument and in controlling the actions of others than in assisting in others' well being.
Can you blame anyone for not wishing to turn their lives over to someone to whom argument comes easier than teaching, and bullying easier than self-sacrifice? Someone quick to focus his magnifying glass on others, slow to look within himself? Can you blame anyone for fearing that their life might someday be controlled by armies of similarly self-righteous rule-makers?
None of us love perfectly of course. That is why we need an intermediary—a bridge between our imperfect selves and a perfect God. But at least we can be honest about our imperfections, and in that honesty, do our best to love properly.
Notably, love is expressed personally, one-to-one, not with the machinery of systems. Systems generally deflate love, because they create space between people. (Maybe that's the true desire of system mongers, no? To do ostensible “good” without the messy business of actually having to touch their neighbor, or having to sacrifice themselves for someone they deem less holy than themselves?)
My guess is that you are better than your words here. I, and I'm sure others as well, would dearly love to see the evidence.
Hi Dave,
If you'd like to get to know me, I would invite you to come to Wisconsin and make cheese with me in a Wisconsin cheese factory some time.
You are right, my words here are unforgiving. Sometimes it takes tough love to make a movement successful. Certainly, the raw milk movement will not be successful if it cannot constructively cope with situations like what Michael Hartmann created.
I cannot help but point out the ideological dimensions to Hartmann's dilema -- a combination of right-wing libertarian constitutionalism and Christian fundamentalism. Is this merely a coincidence, or is this a larger trend in the raw milk movement? Perhaps only time will tell.
Bill - which cheese factory do you work in? I remember one near where my Great Aunt lived (don't remember it's name anymore), My sister & I would got over there after going to the park & they always gave us chunks of cheese to munch on!
I don't currently work in a cheese factory. The cheese factory where I did my apprenticeship is Cedar Grove Cheese in Plain, WI. Cheddar cheese curds are one of the staple cheeses that they make.
I rent and use existing cheese factories to make my custom batches of cheese. I'm in the process of commercializing some recipes of French-style cheeses that I developped at home.
“I cannot help but point out the ideological dimensions to Hartmann's dilema...”
That is not true. You can help it, and should. There is much you don't know, much you don't understand, much you misinterpret. You are pouring out opinions as if you have all the life experience you will ever have, as if there is no chance you will ever change your mind sometime during the (hopefully) many decades you have left in this life.
From the book of Job:
...the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
_______________________________________
“...the raw milk movement will not be successful if it cannot constructively cope with situations like what Michael Hartmann created.”
“Movements” don't cope. People cope, and it seems that the people directly involved with Hartmann are coping very well. If what David says is true, Hartmann and his customers seem to have created a friendly, open, and kind circle. Notably these are characteristics exclusive to people (that is to say, individuals) not systems, nor “collectives” joined not by characteristics but force of rule.
Hear! Hear! What you say about Michael Hartmann and his customer is most certainly true. I am not a customer of Hartmann's but I know many of them. They are actively engaged in supporting him on many levels because they want to have his milk. The transaction is mutual: if Hartmann is guilty for selling his milk, his customers are guilty for buying it: He could not sell it if they were not willing, in most cases demanding, to buy it.
Indeed Bill “the most powerless victims” are the children especially those abandoned by their parents and subject to state care.
We certainly don’t live in a perfect world however the only real hope for children is their parents. The following verses written by a Judeo Christian truly symbolizes the role of parents.
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres”.
Have you ever read “The Shack”. If not I think you would find it very moving.
Consider this controversy leveled at mother Teresa’s work,
“With international recognition also came critique. Some people complained that the houses for the sick and dying were not sanitary, that those treating the sick were not properly trained in medicine, that Mother Teresa was more interested in helping the dying go to God than in potentially helping cure them. Others claimed that she helped people just so she could convert them to Christianity…Mother Teresa also caused much controversy when she openly spoke against abortion and birth control. Others critiqued her because they believed that with her new celebrity status, she could have worked to end the poverty rather than soften its symptoms.”
Does this not sound familiar?
Ken
Hi Ken,
I would certainly agree with the critics of Mother Teresa. Birth control and family planning are more effective at alleviating poverty in the long-term than Catholic charity.
But I think both sides miss the point. The reason there was so much poverty in India was because of the legacy of British Colonialism, and the imposition of liberalized textile markets (the British forced India to open its markets to British textiles) which destroyed India's indigenous textile industry.
Of course, one could also look at the traditional Indian Caste system, and develop a class critique of that as well. For those who follow labor politics, India is still a hotbed of class struggle today, because of the imposition of neo-liberalism via global "free trade" organizations.
Unless one understands the class nature of a society, and the origins of the state (defined here as the socially legitimate organized mechanisms of coercion) in the struggle between the classes, one cannot effectively combat the state... if that is indeed your goal as an Anarchist.
Bill
You appear to support a woman’s right to procure an abortion. Are you advocating abortion as a means of birth control? If so is this the type of “tough love” you’re advocating in order to fight hunger and overpopulation?
http://www.thepoweroflife.org/blog/cassie's-blog/where-have-all-the-girl...
Ken
David, I must say I am a bit disheartened thinking that public health is portrayed as the bad guy with the Hartman case. If I’m not mistaken around 10 kids became ill and one developed HUS. When Hartman was told to stop selling his milk due to the reports of sick kids, he refused. The matching fingerprint to the sick kids was found on his farm. Who in their right mind would continue selling contaminated milk to customers? This is not how a responsible, ethical raw milk farmer should behave.
David, based on the evidence that was collected from Hartman’s farm (matching fingerprint of E.coli 0157:H7 to the sick kids) shouldn’t this be an indicator that this is very serious and raw milk production should stop? Was it really OK with you for him to continue selling his milk?
"public health is portrayed as the bad guy with the Hartman case."
Where it comes to Orwellianly-called "public health" cadres, the point is that whether or not Hartmann sickened anyone is completely irrelevant to them, while the fact that he's a small farmer outside the corporate system means everything.
The fraudulence of your pro-thug position is proven by the Peanut Corp. example given above. We can multiply the examples - Cargill, Wright Eggs, Taco Bell (whose outbreak the government even tried to keep a secret from the public), many others. The fraud is proven by the government's hammer coming down on small dairy after small dairy who never made anyone sick.
These two major trends - non-enforcement against corporate criminals who actually sicken and kill large numbers of people, aggressive thuggery against small producers/distributors like Allgyer and Schlangen who never sickened anyone - together prove that the case against Hartmann has ZERO to do with whether or not he made anyone sick. The Food Safety thugs don't care, and the prosecutor doesn't care.
So let's not confuse two totally separate issues. What the milk movement needs to do to ensure the safety of its own product is a different issue from the fact that the government's "Food Safety" campaign is a "War on Terror"-type scam which is all about power and has nothing to do with safety. The government is committed to total corporate enclosure of the food supply, and toward that goal intends to strangle the Community Food movement. That's the only thing that matters where it comes to the corporate state and our interaction with it. To run interference for the thugs, for example by trying to obscure their motivations and goals, is to try to help destroy Food Sovereignty.
Mary
Public health is an overall disgrace. As to their actions in the Hartmann case they are no less.
If the MDA were so sure of their facts as you believe do you not think the ethical thing to do would be to simply proceed with their case rather then attempt to coerce Hartmann into pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges?
David is evidently correct in suggesting that the MDA are brutes.
Ken
Ken,
Offering deals when your case is weak, only emphasizes the weakness. Bullying those charged is no more than scare tactics (most don't have a basic clue of the laws) These tactics make the bullies look like they are doing their jobs and furthering others agendas. It is doubtful tptb want any more cases to go before a jury.
Mary,
Looking at this from a distance, as you are, with the "facts" presented by the MDA, as you are, then I can see your point. When you are up close, as I have been, things look much different.
First, the MDA did obtain a court order to shut down Hartmann's farm in May 2010, for several months. Even then, all the Hartmann customers I have ever met, and I have met several dozen, would have continued buying and consuming his milk and other food, no questions asked, during that period. But leaving that aside, the regulatory process in Minnesota is very hazy, as are the rules even about buying and selling raw milk and other direct-from-the-farm foods. The state argues, for example, that each person who buys raw milk must come to the farm to obtain it, yet we just saw a jury rule in the Alvin Schlangen case that he was not guilty of violating the law by acting as an agent on behalf of other consumers to obtain raw milk. In the matter of alleged contamination of Hartmann's milk, a key question has been this: At what point was it once again okay for him to sell milk to his loyal and demanding customers? The MDA would never "pass" on his farm, said it continued to be unsanitary, even though the law isn't clear that it's necessary for the MDA to pass on his farm before he can resume his business. His customers came to the farm and said it was fine for them, and they continued to demand his milk and meat, in greater numbers than before. They clearly didn't trust the MDA's assessment, and there was obviously good reason for them not to trust the MDA's assessment, since it has had a long-running feud with Hartmann and, perhaps more important, had not treated him equally under the law. As I pointed out in my post, other large companies accused of sickening people are regularly allowed to re-start their businesses, and aren't prosecuted as criminals for illnesses that may have resulted. Keep in mind, it's been two years since any illnesses were linked to Hartmann's products. How long is he, alone, to be shut down and loyal customers prevented from obtaining his food?
Guess what I'm saying is that the Hartmann case is a complicated situation, just not as black and white as you and many in the public health establishment would like to think it is. It gets at fundamental issues, perhaps the most fundamental being: should the government have the power to deny people food that people are demanding and willing to pay for?
David, the Hartman case is a few years old now. I don’t know the facts as intimately as you do, so please correct me if I get something wrong. I thought Hartman kept selling his milk when he was told of the first few illnesses. At that point he did not stop selling his milk. He was later forced to stop selling his milk. Is that correct?
As for being about to sell his milk again, safety standards on his farm would need to be met. Did he do everything necessary to clean up the farm so that pathogens were not found upon testing? Or did he refuse (maybe because it was too expensive) and that is why they would not allow him to continue selling milk and other food.
From what I remember Michael Hartman was also selling food products from the back of his car. I think meat was involved. He has done the same with raw milk. That is not going out to the farm to buy the food. I know he was also involved in another court proceeding involving a judge making a ruling. I can’t remember the specifics.
Alvin Schlangen was involved in a buying club. The jury ruled on the buying club issue. Would they have ruled differently if it was not a buying club, but direct customer sales? Who knows? What I need clarification on is the milk that was disturbed by the Schlangen’s buying club. Was this raw milk from Michael Hartman’s farm?
Laws are in place regarding food production for a reason. Regulations are the implementation of safety protocols. Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to produce any type of food and who wishes to directly sell to customers should be able to do so without any type of restrictions? I’m talking about direct farm sales free from all regulations.
Laws are in place regarding food production for a reason. Regulations are the implementation of safety protocols.
***
No, laws are in place to protect special interests. As had been said a thousand times, if the government cared about food safety one iota, the heads of Monsanto would not be the high ups in the USDA and FDA. GMOs, antibiotics in livestock, pesticides, herbicides, the subsidization of cheap grains to make junk food cheap, etc... they would focus on this. There is a video done by John STossel (not at all endorsing all he says of does) where he interviews someone pushing for taxi cab "regulations." The guy, wow, an honest one, states why - to get rid of competition, especially independent competition.
Independent businesses/farms don't pay dues to all the people whose pockets get lined by regulations.
Regulations are written by industry to help block competitors from entering the marketplace, and "safety" is the favorite guise, especially appealing to people's fear. Fear is a powerful motivator for the weak, uninformed, and timid, which is why it is the croony gov't's favorite tool for justifying the destruction of our constitution, basic liberties, and small independent businesses.
***
Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to produce any type of food and who wishes to directly sell to customers should be able to do so without any type of restrictions?
***
Yep, exactly. What right do you or any other person, save a community I am a part of voluntarily, have to use force against me to determine what I can feed my family and whom I get that food from or how it is raised?
Last I checked, claiming that right is the same as claiming to be divine, a claim requiring a pretty high degree of hubris.
Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to produce any type of food and who wishes to directly sell to customers should be able to do so without any type of restrictions?
***
Just to be clear, I am in favor of restrictions/regulations... the voluntary ones that naturally arise when people take ownership of their decisions. The ones I/my family/my community determine are needed for our safety and wellness. Not the arbitrary, one size fits all ones violently forced on us by "nanny do-gooder" others who have wrought so much havoc by criminalizing everything and giving our leviathan governments its power over the past few decades.
You think something should be done a certain way or that a belief we have is mistaken- then seek to persuade us through congenial discourse and discussion, through reasoned debate and dialogue, not through violence, threat, and intimidation, and the use of cage and coercion.
Such are the tools of cowards and tyrants.
Mary,
As I said before, Minnesota's laws on regulation of raw milk are vague and contradictory. That is part of the reason Alvin Schlangen was acquitted on all counts of violating the laws. (And no, Schlangen does not distribute Hartmann's milk.) Hartmann, from what I understand, in May 2010, was placed under an embargo, prohibited from selling any of the meat or other products already produced. What was the deal on new products, like milk? I don't know.
You ask: "Are you suggesting that anyone who wants to produce any type of food and who wishes to directly sell to customers should be able to do so without any type of restrictions? I’m talking about direct farm sales free from all regulations." My answer is similar to JohnM's. I would also direct you to the Food Sovereignty ordinances passed by eight towns in Maine and an unknown number of others around the country, including Santa Cruz, CA. These ordinances provide for exactly what you are so disbelievingly questioning--direct sales of food from the farm free from all regulations. The ordinances have been challenged via a court suit in Maine (against farmer Dan Brown). Would be interesting if a jury got that case, wouldn't it?
O.K. Now understanding your belief about direct farm sales, everything you write make sense.
Milky Way,
It's curious that in all your posting here, you never have seemed to acknowledge even the possibility that the public health community might have some fallibility, some difficulties in its relationship with the "public." Have you ever wondered why growing numbers of people not only question public health, but don't trust public health to such an extent that they do the opposite of what public health professionals recommend?
In almost any other business, or nonprofit organization, such evidence of rapidly growing public disenchantment would be a signal to ask a simple question: Why are our customers/constituencies becoming more distrustful of us? Then, they might do some investigating, bring critics in to hear from them, set up an internal committee to figure out if there was anything to the disaffection, and make recommendations about how the organization might become more sensitive and responsive to the public.
But the public health community seems completely impervious. Its reaction is much as yours seems to be--get your back up, complain to be "nauseated", and vow to return with even greater force against those who can't understand the logic of your entirely wholesome and good-hearted desire to protect. I and others here have identified problems in how some farmers and food providers handle illnesses. But I have yet to hear from you any acknowledgment that the public health community may be so taken with its own sense of self righteousness that it has become incapable of seeing that more often than not, there are two sides to nearly every dispute between honorable people.
Very well said David.
Ken
Well said----There are many vested interests that profit from ill health and rampant chronic disease. When I think of public health-despite the widespread and absolutely undeniable benefits throughout history (and I am fascinated by that history)-it is in the area of “national unhealth” where there is now a huge failing. Just as an example-one area is the incredible rise of diabetes in recent times-for which much profit is being made seeking and marketing pharmaceuticals and placing the “blame” on genetics and the like, as opposed to the scientifically proven real world causes. Profits are to be made, quality of life to be sacrificed-that is a worthy dialog to initiate. Even trying to educate people that they can address chronic disease is extremely difficult. That is what I now think about when we discuss public health.
http://www.therealbears.org/
http://news.yahoo.com/poop-transplants-may-combat-bacterial-infections-1...
It's interesting that Public Health is trying to eradicate bacteria from the face of the earth and now doctor's are implanting "poop" from healthy people to eradicate bacterial infections in people. Even in India they put cow poop on cuts to prevent infection. "Food" for thought.
@ Jan: Fecal transplants are not exactly new news. They've been looking into this for some time. The success, however, has been limited. I've never heard of people putting poop on cuts but I have heard of letting a dog lick the cut or placing soil/earth on a cut (which is really nothing more than clay), which is also akin to placing mother's breastmilk into the infected eyes of their babies. But I suppose in situations of desperation, such as where the United States and monstanto et al has placed India, it's probably not unheard of to do so. Living bacteria is the idea behind the thing. I have an article saved (somewhere) about fecal transplants from some time ago, I believe, and I could find it and place it here if you wish to read further on the subject. Let me know.
@D.Smith. On YouTube you can watch a great documentary which you might have seen, One Man, One Cow, One Planet. It's about Peter Proctor who has been spreading biodynamic farming across India for the last 15 years at least. In the second "reel" of 10 minutes or so about at the 3 or 4 minute mark, it talks about the Cow Pat Pitt to make biodynamic preparations. It says farmers know to spread fresh cow dung on cuts to prevent infection. This is not an act of desperation on their parts but an act of using a natural remedy which works. Anyway, that's just an aside to an inspiring documentary about one man's effort to save the planet not by focusing on Monsanto but by focusing on a solution with biodynamic farming. Cow Dung just happens to be central to this way of saving the planet. Ooops, here we are again talking about poop. But of course, it is using cow dung bacteria in an awesomely constructive way. I wish I knew one iota of what Peter Proctor knows. I think you would really enjoy this video if you haven't already seen it. There is so much about traditional ways that we (at least I) don't understand why they worked but they did (and still do). I would be interested of your fecal transplant article if you can find it. I do think that fecal transplants are sort of a last ditch effort to fix something gone perhaps unnecessarily awry. I am not promoting them but hey, if that's someone's last ditch chance, I guess they should try it. Personally, I prefer eating real food and colonizing my gut flora the old fashioned way.
@ Jan: When I talked about desperation, I meant it in the sense that America, by trying to "help" India such as by supplying them with GMO seeds and telling them lies about what it really was (and by using destitute Indian populations as guinea pigs for test vaccinations and more disgusting stuff) has made part of India into areas of total desparation where all but very limited illnesses can be treated - at all. So the dung treatment would definitly make sense, I'd just never heard of it before being used externally. I thought they mostly relied on soil for that sort of thing. They're probably a lot smarter than the USA thinks, and for sure they're catching on fast nowadays to all the shenanigans.
Also, here's one article from 2007 on fecal transplant http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/story/2007/11/13/fecal-transplant.html
And then there's this one, also from 2007:
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2007/12/17/fecal-transplants-to-cure-c...
Thanks for posting the info about the youtube dealie, and I'll surely try to give it a look-see real soon. Tonight I'm getting off the computer momentarily because it's already been a very long day. But I copied down the information you gave and will get to it soon.
David,
What criteria do you use to define "honorable people"?
For example, Is a dispute between two drug lords not a dispute over honor to some extent? (I would think it is also a dispute over power and money, as well)
It seems to me that much of this dispute between Hartmann and public health is also over money and power, on both sides. (i.e. Hartmann's past refusal to pay income taxes)
I would suggest that there is an honorable way to boycott the income tax, but its not the way that Hartmann went about it in the past:
http://www.warresisters.org/wartaxresistance
Also, David, I'm curious what makes Hartmann's actions in this case "manly."
Wouldn't, in some sense, his actions be "womanly", since women tend to be more self-sacrificing than men (in my experience anyways). I'm not an anthropologist, but from my understanding of the anthropological record, matriarchal societies (that is to say, societies in which lineage was traced through the mother rather than through the father) also tended to be more peaceful and egalitarian than our patriarchal Judeo-Christian society.
@ BillAnderson: Well, I'm a woman and from my POV, I think it was most certainly a manly and honorable and noble thing for Hartmann to do regarding the people in his family.
You, of course, are free to feel however you wish.
I really should stop helping to perpetuate these rather unrelated topics (man vs. woman, etc.), but it's too much fun.
Bill,
I guess I'm brainwashed, but I didn't really pay attention to the "manly" adjective. I was more interested in the rest of the article.
To say women tend to be more self-sacrificing than men is rather unthinking. If you reflect for a minute, I
feel pretty sure you'll remember men who are/were self-sacrificing, maybe in small ways, possibly great.
You'll likely also recall women who were selfish, cruel and greedy. No sex, race or group has a monopoly on either trait.
Whenever I read these kinds of comments, I remember the song from "Oklahoma" where the lyric says something like "I don't say that I'm better than anybody else, but I'll be darned if I ain't just as good!"
That seems to me a sensible philosophy in general-which is one reason I have contempt for the belief that there's a special group of anointed folks who can make all my decisions for me (Example: what foods my family can consume. Another example: How to raise my children). BTW Bill, since calling them "my children" automatically enslaves them, what should they be called?
How did the human race survive all these years without these "experts" ? It must have been a miracle. Ooh, doesn't that imply God...?
So why did MDA offer Hartmann a deal. If the MDA were so sure of their facts as you believe. do you not think the ethical thing to do would be to simply proceed with their case rather then attempt to coerce Hartmann into pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges?
Ken
"Manly" just a bit of slang, to suggest Hartmann took the hit for his wife and brother, didn't want them to have to go through the stress of a trial, regardless of outcome, for "crimes" that Hartmann committed. I don't know about his income tax issues, all I know is he has been selling food privately to customers--that is, no advertising, distribution through private homes to individual customers.
I'm not sure why MDA offered a deal, except perhaps the agency was still a little shell-shocked by Alvin Schlangen's recent acquittal. Otherwise, you'd think the MDA would have insisted on a trial, or a stiffer penalty in lieu of a trial. But to combine the terms "ethical" with the MDA...well, I'll let you sit on that one a while.
Bravo David!
@ Deborah Peterson: MW is saying, in his own Mr. Snide-insky way, that because we all like raw milk, we should also like raw oatmeal - raw being the key word. The part about baldness and his teeth yada yada yada was all just crap talk because we sometimes mention here what good things raw milk has done for us, or for others we know about, so he was saying that because he eats his oatmeal raw (which I'm quite sure he doesn't, it's just a warped sense of humor thing) his hair and teeth have gotten better. IOW, he was making jabs at those of us who like raw milk.
I can't find your post where you talked about the forum, but I'm glad you checked it out. I can't even remember what else you had to say, but if nothing else there interests you, some of the recipes will, most likely. Copy whatever you wish, you don't have to join unless you want to. I've seriously considered shutting it down several times in the past few years, but everytime I mention it I get a bunch of emails from people who read there but don't post there (don't ask me why they don't post cuz I don't get it myself!) so I've decided to keep it up for a while yet. It took me about 5 minutes to set it up and costs nothing, so I prefer it to a blog format - any day of the week!
Ah, you caught that, too, huh D.? Yep, it was very obvious what his intentions were. Some people must get great satisfaction out of belittling or insulting others. Personally, I don't understand it!
Yes, your forum is very interesting, I am having a grand time reading through it. Definitely hold on to it, I will definitely share the link with friends of mine. I did try to register, but I am having some problems, every time I put the verification code, it says that the code is wrong, I'm not sure why it's doing that. You know, I can't find that post of mine either, it seems to be lost, it was there one day, then gone the next. I think I included a comment about hoe yummy my baked oatmeal turned out. I added pumpkin, pumpkin pie spice, grade B maple syrup, organic brown cane sugar & pecans to it...what a treat!
Deborah, people behave the way MW does are nothing more then a bully, and/or have great insecurities, and/or are in fear of losing their job, small man syndrome....Cowards,aren't able to think for themselves. This site has some good information about bullies... http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/amibeing.htm#How Some people fit the description to a T.
Hi Sylvia,
I totally disagree with you. Milky Way came here with good intentions -- to engage with the raw milk movement and raw milk industry on how to constructively address the public health concerns our food product raises.
Once again, the extreme libertarian rhetoric of this movement (as evidenced by much of the above commentary) has driven off another sympathetic and well-meaning public health person.
Also, apparently anyone who doesn't agree with the raw milk libertarians is a "coward." I guess, according to Alvin, I am a coward because I want to do the responsible thing and retain liability insurance. Go figure.
The libertarianism of this movement is a big problem, and I will continue to combat it with every means I have available to me. We need public health people on our side. They are not our enemy. The real enemy is corporate agribusiness.
engage? good intentions?
LMAO, No, he came here to instigate and insult, a shill for the govt et al. What good intentions? Do site some... He is not open to discussion, nor does he appear to even want to listen to anyone but himself. If it isn't his way, then it is wrong. Narcissism at its best. If you wish to believe he has positive motives, that is your choice, not mine. His agenda has, for years, appeared to be in bed with big ag, et al. Reminds me of those who pimp or whore for their money, the ones NOT doing it out of necessity.
Liability insurance?
I don't know what the stats are for liability insurance for RNs right now, Years ago (10-15) it was less that 1/2 had liability insurance (unless you worked ER or maternity). Having your name on that patients chart could have you mentioned/named in a law suit, even if you did nothing wrong. When a nurse applies for a job, many places ask, on the application, if you've ever been named/participated in a law suit. Be forewarned, if you answer, yes, you probably won't get hired, if you lie and they find out,(even if did you didn't nothing wrong) you'll get fired. IF you have insurance, then you may increase your chances of being sued, deep pockets. Many will say:"the hospital has lawyers and they'll look out for me". If you believe that, then you are extremely gullible. Hospitals or any employer only look out for themselves. If you don't have insurance, and you've done nothing wrong, then they may ignore you if there is a law suit. Getting insurance, like religion, is a personal choice.
As for ones political beliefs, that is not my concern, just as their religious beliefs aren't. I don't know why you continually bring up political beliefs and NO I don't really care to know. I wasn't aware Davids blog was a podium for political beliefs.
Bill - you are a newcomer here, so you do not know the history with Milky Way here & you couldn't be more wrong with your statement "Milky Way came here with good intentions -- to engage with the raw milk movement and raw milk industry on how to constructively address the public health concerns our food product raises." As Sylvia points out below, she is spot on correct about MW's behaviour! It definitely has nothing to do with "the extreme libertarian rhetoric of this movement". Perhaps if you want to take the extra time & go back into viewing many previous post, especially from a year ago, you will see what we mean.
Actually, let me rephrase that....As Sylvia points out above!
Actually, Deborah, I've probably been commenting on this blog longer than you. In fact, I've been here so long I remember when Lykke (another public health worker) decided to leave this forum.
And no, I don't think Milky Way is bullying or intimidating anyone. I think the ones who are doing the bullying and intimidating in this movement are the so-called "libertarians." If they aren't attacking public health people, they are attacking land grant universities, animal rights activists, while shilling for other reactionary causes like the NRA or Christian fundamentalism.
The raw milk movement has certainly become a podium for many horrible right-wing political beliefs. If Joel Salatin and his ilk can go around preaching their right-wing beliefs, why can't I preach my left-wing beliefs?
Oh, I remember Lykke, too! I'm not sure what you mean by your statement of 'If they aren't attacking public health people, they are attacking land grant universities, animal rights activists'...I don't recall any posts where that happened. And...are you saying that those that want to protect their access to raw milk for the health benefits that they have been enjoying for years are only people who have 'horrible right-wing political beliefs? Really, is that how you look at all of us? Do you not think that we value the benefits of raw milk? Why do you want to throw political agendas to us? I don't get that! My access & advocacy (along with thousands of other mothers) to raw milk has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of politics...what I resent is some health agency person who wants to take that away from me. They have no clue how & what I benefit from consumption of raw milk.
Deborah, its one thing when an informed adult decides to consume raw milk. Its quite another when they feed it to a child, even their own, and particularily when the milk has not met rigerous hygiene standards.
(Please note: I make an exception for farm kids drinking milk from the farm they grow up on, because they have natural immunity from living in the dairy farm enviroment. It would appear that most raw milk libertarians feed raw milk to their city and/or suburban kids who probably don't spend more than an hour a week on a dairy farm, and in many cases less than that.)
Still, even for consenting adults, the liability rests on the producer. And if producers do not have an effective way to manage risk and ensure liability coverage, I can't blame public health for wanting to shut them down. This doesn't mean I agree with public health's approach. My approach is to educate, research, and provide the scientific tools to make raw milk as safe as possible. But public health workers can lose their jobs and go to prison over outbreaks like these, for failing to protect the public health.
Perhaps if we made sure public health agencies had full operating budgets, and that there was actually a democratic public dialogue about our current public health paradigm (I would argue there is not such a democratic public dialogue right now, because our democracy is so bankrupted by corporate power), public health would undertake the job of educating producers and providing the scientific tools needed for raw milk food safety.
Lacking that, it is upto those of us with a more forward-thinking agenda (i.e. myself, Mark McAfee, etc) to do this job for public health.
As for the "right-wing political beliefs", well, our political dialogue in America has moved so far to the right over the last 30 years (since the Reagan Revolution) that to suggest anything even remotely left of center make them brand you a red. Joel Salatin has engaged in numerous attacks on animal rights activists, "radical" enviromentalists (actually, the people he attacks I would consider merely liberal enviromentalism... for radical enviromentalism, see EarthFirst! and the Earth Liberation Front), social workers and public health workers, etc, etc...
If one pays close attention to the dialogue in the raw milk movement, there is a lot of very right-wing elements. At raw milk rallies in Wisconsin, it is not uncommon for me to see propoganda from the John Birch Society, which is about as reactionary as they get.
Bill - have been drinking raw milk since being an infant, so that makes over 60 yrs of raw milk consumption. I raised 4 daughters on raw milk, they are adults now. Not once did any of us suffer any ill affects or illness & no, my children were not raised on a farm. I was until I got out of high school, after that I always purchased my raw milk from health food stores or co-ops. So I just don't buy your reasoning that only farm children should be given raw milk.
One of the discoveries I've made about the food freedom and raw milk movement(s) is the diversity of those involved. I don't see an overwhelming number of "right-wingers", born-again Christians, etc. On this blog I'd say there are probably more commenters who don't appear to be religious than otherwise. In my personal experience, I find the same thing. It's stupid to sit here and divide ourselves into "right" and "left", Christian, Atheist and so on. I'm pro-life/anti-abortion; many here disagree with me, but although we've briefly discussed the topic, nobody has gotten bogged down in it. There's no point in allowing ourselves to be diverted by these issues. We'll never get anywhere. And please BillAnderson, don't start attacking me on abortion now-this is not the proper forum for the subject.
Bravo, Bill.
Thanks Kristen. Good to know there is at least one person around here who appreciates my commentary.
I 2nd that bravo!
Great link, Sylvia, yes, MW has always shown his bullying tactics here. He has never said anything positive, has never been open to any constructive discussions, has always shown nothing but contempt to the opinions of those on this forum & so on...it's been his usual M.O.!
@ Deborah Peterson: I've been having trouble logging onto my forum all day today, so I think something is up with that! Maybe that's why you aren't able to register. About two weeks ago I went to the master forum (the administration) and asked them to please dismantle my forum because I was tired of all the delays, etc. They never contacted me directly, so I went back again today and have been fighting with those doods and doodettes all day today about this. They finally let it slip that they are setting up a new server (kudu or something like that) so I suppose that's what is causing all the delays. If they had just said so in the first place it wouldn't have taken me all dang day to find out. I'm going to ask if there's another reason why you might be having trouble registering, because Georgina just recently registered and told me she had no problems at all. Hmmm. Well, whatever I find out I'll let you know. Otherwise, all I can suggest is to just keep trying whenever you get a minute or two to spare. Maybe I'll try to create a new account and see what happens (I don't even know if it will let me do that or not, but I can try), although it already knows my ISP number so that may not be helpful. Ah well, one can only try. I answered your email, too, and mentioned that your pumpkin idea for your oatmeal sounded good, especially with the pecans.
@ MW: If I wanted to eat raw oatmeal, I would. I don't. I'm glad you're a purist, though.
1 cup cooked oats has approximately:
manganese 1.36 mg which is 68% RDA, selenium, 2.64 mcg 18%RDA , phosphorus 180.18 mg 18%RDA, fiber 3.98 g 15.9%RDA, magnesium 63.18 mg 15%RDA, zinc 2.34 mg 15%RDA
When you add nuts, fruit, wheat germ, etc and whatever you cook it in, will add more nutrition to it. Of course the more processed the oats are, the less nutritious they are. I haven't been able to find the difference in nutrition between rolled oats and steel cut oats.
I've had patients that refused to take statin drugs and ate a bowel of old fashioned oats daily and lowered their cholesterol levels in 1-2 months.
That's a good point Sylvia...is there a difference in the two ways of processing oatmeal? Of course, which method would produce more heat, rolling between stones or steel cutting? I don't think I've come across any documentation about that, but perhaps the folks at Bob's Red Mill would know since they use both methods. The only thing that I do know is that I prefer the taste & texture of steel cut oats as opposed to rolled. Rolled oats don't have that hearty, nutty flavor that steel cut has, plus it is more mushy & soggy than steel cut. Every time that I go to Scotland, steal cut (also known as 'pinhead') is the predominate style of oats that is used for porridge for breakfast & is so, so yummy!
Deborah, Scotland is on my bucket list, as is Ireland. When I hear the word porridge, I envision Americanized oatmeal (mushy). I'll try to remember to send an email later, to Bob's Red Mill asking about the difference in oat processing.
Oh Sylvia you would love Scotland! Every time I go, it gets harder & harder to come back here. I can't begin to tell enough of what makes Scotland so great..the people, the country, the culture & so on!
Sylvia, FTCLDF agreed to take my case on; in order for Gary Cox to practice in California, he needed a sponsoring attorney. Ultimately, things dragged on so long, with procedural hearing after procedural hearing, there was no need for him to come out, so my attorney here in LA, Freddy Sayegh, handled it. Gary was actively involved via e-mail and phone, and both he and Pete Kennedy were wonderful support and counsel.
Sharon had 80 goats, 40 of which were owned outright by Rawesome. She never bought goat's milk; the only allegations involving the tiresome word "outsourcing" have been about eggs. And I actually have something to say about that. There is a huge difference between asking a customer if they would like a replacement source for a product during a time when a farm's output is likely to run low, and deliberately providing product from an alternate source while concealing that fact. During the time I was at the farmer's market, the farm sold eggs to several restaurants (one to five cases, each, a case holding 15 dozen eggs). Sharon's chickens laid fewer eggs for a few weeks each year, both when they were adjusting to the heat of summer and the chill of winter. Each time, those of us at the booth ask the restaurants if they wanted to find another source for some or all of their eggs until the layers got back up to speed, or if they wanted the farm to source for them. They always opt to have Sharon provide alternate eggs, and they're always happy when her hens get going again, because they can tell the difference between her own eggs and those coming from an alternate source (however good) – which, of course, is why they were buying from her in the first place.
I was at her stand for two and a half years. Something I never understood in all the fuss, was where on earth nobody ever thought about the flavor and texture of the chicken while so willing to be convinced that she was buying it elsewhere and foisting it on an unsuspecting public. Week after week, customers would come up to the booth to rave about the flavor, the juiciness, the "chickenness" of what they bought. Customers born in France who had stopped buying chicken in the U.S. bought her chicken. And eggs. And pretty much anything else she provided. Because she does a damned good job of farming, and the food she raises and sells is delicious – and hers. It was ridiculous to think that Costco (or whatever) chicken could replace that raised on the farm – customers would have noticed the difference in a New York minute. (I speak in past tense only because I'm no longer working at the market. The farm is still very much present tense at the market, selling its wonderful food to customers.)
Arsenic, mercury? That's all bunk. The manager at the market drove to Sharon's processor and met her as she was unloading chickens for processing, waited for one to be done, and sent it to the state ag lab for testing. The same manager bought a random chicken at Sharon's booth for testing as well, along with eggs. Results came back the same as those on the tests Sharon had requested herself, but with even more validity because it wasn't Sharon: no pollution in those chickens or those eggs.
So go ahead – not just Sylvia, but everyone here who has spoken with authority on an issue and about a person you don't know – run Sharon's past legal dealings on her and judge her. Quote the unverified allegations contained in a document the Los Angeles D.A. published to make sure she couldn't reduce her bail, but which were never verified and never included in actual charges against her. Decide you know how she farms and judge her for that, too. Decide that she hasn't said things the way you wanted them to be said to satisfy your curiosity or animosity or desire for a scapegoat. Decide that she represents everything you ever distrusted.
And when you've done all that – which many of you have, unfortunately – Sharon will still be Sharon. And the Sharon I know (and at this point, I know her pretty darned well) has been through hell in the past year or so, between the legal burdens (which never should have happened in the first place), the rumors, and the struggle to pay the mortgage and the lawyers and just the day to day bills.
Somehow too many people have forgotten that Sharon is a human being, too. And I do not know how she maintains the resilient mojo that she manages to pull together every day. She has three great children to shuttle to school and soccer and basketball and movies, and animals to feed and take to the butcher (well, three butchers, because the chicken guy can't do four-legged animals) and pick up from the butcher and pack vans for the market and keep things clean. The woman does a good job with her farm, loves the animals she raises, loves her kids, loves the land on which she farms, is for her customers and her friends.
And she's doing it all without a lot of help, because her business was hurt and she's making less money but she still has the bills and the kids and the mortgage. But she still feeds the homeless kids in the neighborhood who her oldest daughter brings home like stray puppies. And she still gives food that comes back from the market to her neighbors who are out of work. And she gives her expensive-to-raise pork to the young chef who's starting up a restaurant because he has helped her in the past. She can't stand to see anyone hungry, and she'll keep doing whatever she can, with whatever resources she has, to try to help.
Because that's the woman I know. And you don't know any of that but you can still harp on the word "outsourcing" like you have a clue. Those of you who already decided that you know, and won't change your minds, fine. As a good friend of mine says, "Opinions are like noses. Everybody's got one."
But if you're willing to entertain the radical notion that Sharon might be a good person ( perhaps in spite of her past, perhaps because of her past), give it a shot.
Signing off with appreciation for all who farm and all who support farmers, Victoria
Thank you Victoria, for your beautiful post here. It is great to get the correct information from a key person very close to the happenings. It is such a destructive thing for people to use rumors as facts, it then tends to run rampant. Of course, the major accusers that have been on this forum have been strangely silent & absent for some time, but I hope they read your post here. Maybe....just maybe, it will give them food for thought, but perhaps as hard headed that they are, not to mention, so tunneled visioned, it won't change their minds anyway. One in particular seems to know you & seemed to have respect for you, but it is strange that she has never discussed any of this with you. You would think that she would really want the real truth & had the opportunity to discuss it with you! It makes me wonder about their ulterior motives when they are not willing to hear the truth.
Thank you, Deborah, for having taken the time to read my lengthy rant. I just snapped when I saw the word "outsourcing" – again. And now that I'm out of the case, I am somewhat freer to, um, express myself!
If you are referring to me, Deborah, I spoke to Victoria about this many moons ago...she was the first person I asked about it all at a WAPF meeting. She and AnnMarie. Once I looked into things myself, I could see that Victoria really felt like she knew things were Kosher at HFF so I went looking for other voices. Victoria is a very passionate and compassionate person.
Sharon palmer admitted to outsourcing eggs, without informing the consumers, on this very blog. That was fraud to those who purchased those eggs, believing they were from Palmer's farm.
Sharon Palmer admitted to selling eggs not from her farm and did not inform the consumers. She admitted to fraud. This egg fraud lasted at least 6 months, per her own admitting. Her long history of fraud will continue to follow as long as she continues to commit fraud.
Had I purchased eggs from her, and not been told they were outsourced, I'd be very pissed off. Most people are paying higher dollars for what they believe is better quality foods and when a farmer, or anyone else abuses that trust, it doesn't come back.
No, actually, that's not correct.
She said that she provided eggs for Rawesome, with Rawesome's full knowledge, following the demise of most of her flock. That is not outsourcing, Sylvia, and she is not the one using that word here.
Rawesome was a customer of the farm's as far as chicken and eggs, and a herdshare partner as far as the goat dairy products. Sharon offered Rawesome the same opportunity to source their own alternate eggs, or have her do so as a convenience for them, while she rebuilt her flock as she does restaurants during low-egg seasons. The fact that Rawesome did not change the sign over the egg boxes to state that fact is no more her responsibility than it would be to ensure that the menus at half a dozen restaurants say that the eggs that usually come from the farm are temporarily coming from another source. If you want to blame someone, if that is really necessary in the overall scheme of things, then blame Rawesome. They paid less for the eggs Sharon got on their behalf but didn't change the price. And that's not Sharon's fault, either.
She never sold (and does not now) eggs at the farmer's market that were not hers, except to restaurants as noted previously, and that was with the customer's full knowledge and blessing. But at the stand, to her "civilian" customers, hers and hers alone. If the eggs ran out early, as they do when stock is low, they ran out.
Again, if a supplier lets the customer know where the eggs are coming from, that's not outsourcing. Nor is it fraud. And I'm not going to cry "fraud!" about Rawesome, either. Sloppy, absolutely. They should have posted a sign.
If a farmer's reputation is trashed because of rumors and gossip, the damage is just as severe as when they actually committed the acts of which they're accused. Whose fault is that, Sylvia?
Entertain, for a teensy moment, the notion that she actually is who she says she is – a woman "with a past" that does not inform her present. Consider the possibility that you have been grossly misled by, or have grossly misunderstood, information you thought was factual. No harm, no foul for you. But what about Sharon, and anyone else who's pled guilty to a crime to put an end to a case (like Michael Hartmann, and like me, for that matter)? Did you even know that the guilty plea all those years ago was one tendered and accepted after nine months sitting in jail, not a guilty verdict at trial?
When does anyone get to balance things, once they've fallen into the legal rabbit hole? Because I pled guilty to a misdemeanor of selling unlabeled milk, does that make me a fraud in your mind too, one you would shy away from at the farmer's market?
From the looks of it, I doubt I'm going to change your mind, and that's fine...I'll still enjoy reading your posts. (OK, maybe not the ones trashing people I care about, but the rest of them.)
And steel cut oats are the bomb.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/article/2011/october/13/i-can-explain-...
"She denied she was outsourcing chickens, but said she did outsource eggs for six or seven months in 2008 and 2009...with the partial knowledge of James Stewart, Rawesome's manager."
Guess you are saying David is telling lies? If the people who bought the outsourced eggs were not informed they were outsourced, that is fraud, deliberately misleading the consumers. There is somewhere on this blog where she admitted not informing the consumers that the eggs were outsourced. Most crooks say they fell into the "legal rabbit hole".
She admitted to outsourcing the eggs for Rawesome here in this blog. It's the one thing she has admitted so that is why Victoria is tired of hearing about the eggs.
All of this outsourcing talk is making me dizzy - again. If a judge in this land had half a brain, couldn't he just say "tell her to put up a sign letting the customers know where the eggs (or whatever) came from" and that be the end of it? Ah no, of course not, that would be too simple and would actually solve the problem without costing a gazillion dollars. Not to mention, the whole affair could be done on the phone - no courtroom drama involved.
Our farmers market, at every tent and truck, carries goods from their own farms and from their neighboring farms. What they don't grow, their neighbors probably do but maybe the neighbor can't get to the farmers market to sell their goods. This is not new. I'll bet every farmers market does the same thing. So do they always tell us where the stuff comes from? If I ask, they tell me. As a responsible consumer, I generally ask if the produce is grown organically. If it is, I don't care who grew it. If the farmer/vendor selling it tells me it is organically grown, I have to assume it is. This is no less than what grocery stores do when they put produce in a section of the store they call "the organic area" and label the stuff with a sticker number starting with number 9. In truth, though, I have NO way of knowing the true origin of that produce. I must take them at their word.
Victoria, I also appreciate hearing directly from you about what you know, what you have seen and what you have experienced. I have read various attacks against you and Sharon on this blog and have reserved judgment. When David publishes articles about events in my state, about which I have personal knowledge, I see how people rush to judgment based on misconceptions or false assumptions. Also those making comments twist the topic around to pontificate on their pet ideology or theory, often distorting the facts to make it fit. Therefore, I am cautious about making judgments regarding events and situations I have no personal knowledge of.
Thanks! You are a wise woman to suspend judgment on situations you have no first-hand knowledge of. Would that we all were as balanced in our consciousness.
When I read Victoria's justifications and presentment that Palmer is a upstanding individual, I became so saddened and nauseated. Has she begun her coverup of the facts? Let's look at the evidence. Since UnhealthyFamilyFarm.com is up and running again, you can read the testimony of 5 past employees and volunteers who worked for Palmer and you will discover that she defrauded the members of Rawesome for at least 1.5 years. According to documents obtained from commercial egg and meat wholesalers, Palmer bought and sold product for over 2 years. Because the criminal charges were filed for offenses prior to 2011, no records were sought for purchases after 2010.
How much time did Victoria spend on the farm trading eggs from commercial packaging to non-commercial packaging, and the same with meats. According to testimony of 6 past employees, they never saw her there for more than a few minutes. Also, notice in the photos Zacky Farms labels on the chickens? I do not think any of us are brain-dead yet some people think we are.
I have seen many photos of Unhealthy Family Farm and there were never 80 goats. Nor did James or the other investors in the farm produce any evidence that they purchased 75 goats. At the most 12 milk-producing goats appear in photos. I reiterate, there are no receipts for 65 goats and no documentation. When animals are transferred and sold in California, there must be a paper trail according to veterinarians with whom I inquired.
Four months ago, an investigation for my law suits against Palmer and Stewart turned up veterinarian Daniel Drake who has documentation that Palmer bought non-organic goat's milk from his herd and peddled it as organic and as produced on the farm for at least 1 year. Palmer acquired a huge batch of non-organic goat's milk cheese from his elderly parents goat farm in Utah and sold it as if it were grass-fed and from her goat's.
By the way, Palmer only paid approximately $3k for the nearly $21k that she promised and contracted (in 2008) to pay for the cheese. Palmer has never contacted the elderly farmers, who really need the money, to pay them even though I understand that Palmer won a windfall lawsuit of $1M plus recently. In an email from September 2011, Palmer claims she dumped the cheese because it went bad. However, another past employee of Palmer's said that she knows Palmer sold the cheese. Even if Palmer had dumped some of the cheese because she did not take care of the cheese, does not release her from her contract. She received the cheese and she owes the $18k. Additionally, she peddled it as grass-fed from her farm to gain outlandish prices. Neither Dan's or his parent's goat farms are organic and certainly not very grass-fed.
The arsenic and mercury results were done on food Palmer supplied so that seems to be a clear enough no-brainer. The extent to which con-artists and thieves will fabricate to make themselves appear as righteous victims in their coverups is as sickening as Washington DC politicians. Are they merely pathological glib prevaricators to which we should feel great sympathy or even empathy? Did they poisons members with commercial food full of industrial chemicals or not?
There is no evidence that Palmer supplied any restaurants with anything from her farm, and certainly could not have supplied enough commercial eggs and meats to justify all that she purchased. There is astounding evidence that the products were sold at farmer's markets and to Rawesome.
Also, the eggs that were supplied by Palmer to Rawesome on nearly every occasion that I went to Rawesome were perfectly sized, meaning the same size to the naked eye. I have been on about 300 farms. Unless a farm had at least 5k layers, it was impossible and too costly to sort eggs to such exacting sizes. Again look at how many eggs Palmer sold weekly and look at the number of laying chickens in the photographs taken in 2010. Testimony from past employees state that there was never any more laying chickens than pictured.
My lawsuit against Palmer and Stewart is supposed to go to trial in February 2013. We will see what a jury will do with all of the evidence and testimony.
One last comment: It astounds me that David, as wise as he is, and Victoria as smart as she is can be so easily swayed by such adept con-artists as the evidence proves Palmer and Stewart are.
@ AV: You see things one way, the Rawsome folks see things another way. You say there's evidence one way, Victoria says there's evidence the other way. That's why all of this ends up in front of a judge. A judge who doesn't know a thing about that which he has to make a decision, nor does he care. It's as if everything is black and white or run and fight. And then they call this justice? It doesn't matter who wins, we ALL lose. This gets the attention of the gubment and it just knocks the entire food rights movement down a peg or two and gives the food police a reason to keep twisting the blade. And they will because they're getting all the ammunition they need right from the people in the movement.
Aajonus,
What continues to astound me about your ongoing vendetta against James Stewart and Sharon Palmer is that you decided to make it a public affair. This is all about people's right to obtain food privately, outside the public system. Yet you, one of the founders of this private system, developer of the lease arrangements used by many farmers and food club members, chose to turn your upset with Stewart and Palmer into a public affair. You went to the Ventura County District Attorney and you put up a web site full of accusations and innuendo open to all--very public actions.
Now you wonder that I "can be so easily swayed by such adept con-artists as the evidence proves Palmer and Stewart are." I wonder, who appointed you prosecutor, judge and jury?
You were a member of Rawesome. I was a member of Rawesome. Once you informed me (and other members) about your concerns about Stewart and Palmer, you were done. Then, it was up to me to decide whether I wanted to remain a member of Rawesome or move on to another food club. End of story. (Though you were entitled to, and did, file a private civil suit against Stewart and Palmer; once again, that was a private matter.)
But no, you decided you needed to go public. In that sense, you are not unlike the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Hartmann. The MDA thinks Hartmann is dangerous, for reasons not dissimilar to why you think Palmer and Stewart are dangerous. The MDA feels it has the right and obligation to interfere in people's private choices, in the interests of "protection," just as you decided you have the right and obligation to interfere in people's private choices, in the interests of "protection" of the people you argue were sickened by Palmer's food.
Somehow, you seem to have lost sight of your original principles and your role in the movement to protect private food rights. D. Smith has it right--the government enforcers love what you have done by carrying on with your public vendetta.
David - thank you, thank you, & once again, thank you for your post here. When I saw Aajonus's repetitive vile posts yesterday, I had the same exact thoughts as you. I cannot believe his ongoing vindictiveness. Because of his actions & his alone, Rawesome was totally shut down thereby depriving all the members that depended on Rawesome for their food items. Does he not have any clue what this has do to those members that had to turn to alternatives that more than likely were not of the same type & quality, nor the extra expense, extra driving time or extra hardship that it has had on all those members?! His desire to get even with James & Sharon has gone beyond what is honorable!! Someone that goes to great lengths to get back at someone is someone very deplorable!
Oh.....and very despicable!!!
Bravo.
...and David once again doesn't understand that hundreds of customers are pizzzzzzzzed because they were allegedly sold crappy food at premium prices... Yes, Bravo!
Pages