Why FDA's Censorship May Be More About Business, or Rather, Preventing Raw Milk Business
Why would the U.S. Food and Drug Administration feel so threatened by a scientific assessment of research on raw milk out of Europe that it would bully a dairy group into forcing the article's removal from a major university's web site?
After all, the assessment wasn't revealing anything that lots of people didn't already know. The most recent of the findings, the GABRIELA study, has been out for more than a year now, postulating that it could well be a protein in milk--damaged or destroyed by pasteurization--that confers protective effects on children from allergies and asthma.
And interfering with the academic freedom of a major university like the University of California, Davis, is not a trivial matter, even for a bullying organization like the FDA. There had to have been a number of approvals necessary before the dairy group's head, John Sheehan, did the dirty deed.
My guess is that the FDA wanted to send a clear message to the dairy industry that any thoughts its members might be having about exploring even the most minimal shift to raw milk won't be tolerated. Even though dairy processors have been as opposed as the FDA to raw milk, the dairy farmers are another matter.
They've gone along with what the processors want, since they know well where their milk checks come from. But as ever more dairies flounder and fail in the face of insufficient pricing, well, more dairies are beginning to think the unthinkable.
The California Dairy Research Foundation foundation says it is "governed by seven directors. The representatives of the Board of Directors are drawn from key producer and processor organizations..." But if you look at the seven board members, five are from dairies.
Might it be that the dairy board members are beginning to see that the economic future of the dairy industry needs to accommodate raw milk somehow, if the industry is to have a viable future? Sales of pasteurized milk continue a long steady decline. The future is increasingly in value-add products, particularly probiotics.
What the censored research paper, "The evidence around raw milk", was suggesting is that dairy products will have much greater health benefits if they are produced from raw milk.
All you have to do is review other articles on the CDRF web site, and you will appreciate where I'm going with this. (You may want to hurry, since there's no telling when these articles may disappear as well.)
There is one on how probiotics are showing ever more evidence of being able to lower cholesterol.
Then there's this uplifting one: "Stress, Depression and Suicide Prevention for Dairy Farmers".
Finally, and perhaps most significant, there is an article just posted in the last few days about how the FDA has interfered with American researchers who have been having trying to do research on probiotics.The title pretty much says it all: "How FDA’s actions are guaranteeing research on probiotic foods is not conducted in the USA"
The article advises researchers: "The FDA Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER)...role is to evaluate biologic drugs – so when they see 'probiotic' it seems they automatically think 'drug.'...But if your intent is to conduct research that will substantiate claims on a food (or dietary supplement), then an IND (investigational new drug application) is an expensive, time-consuming, unnecessary task, that may lock your product into the drug category...Consequently, companies are turning to ex-US locations for conducting probiotic food research."
In other words, the CDFR appears to be supporting complaints that probiotic research is being forced outside the U.S., possibly for foreign countries to benefit from the emerging business opportunity.
What the CDFR seems to be saying via these articles (including the banned one) is that California dairies are being screwed over so badly that its members are committing suicide, yet there's this emerging business opportunity via raw milk that lies out there just beyond the horizon, if only they are allowed to grab it.
If you are wondering why the CDFR didn't just tell the FDA to get lost when it told the foundation to pull the raw milk article, the answer is that the FDA has pretty much complete regulatory control of the dairy industry, through the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance, which it enforces with the states. It also determines which foods can be sold as foods, and which must get approval to be sold as drugs, per the above article.
It could be that the struggle for control of an emerging commercial raw milk business is unfolding right before our eyes.
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.
When the FDA changed regulation all by iteself in 2007 and reclassified raw colostrum from a nationally legal "Dietary Supplement" into a dairy product that needed to comply with CFR 1240.61...this was done in secret. No hearings, no public comment. It was just rendered to be so one bright and shiny day at the FDA offices. That effectively removed OPDC colostrum products from 20 stores in Nevada where those products sales were rising and very popular.
The FDA operates as a kingdom with edict. A place unquestioned by our legislature. A place that is populated by corrupt ex-corporate golden parachute types on FOOD INC furlough.
There is a place in autism hell for these FDA types. John Sheehan is the whore lacky that leads this secret service in disservice to all of America.
Pretty soon the FDA will have alienated even their own PMO dairy industry.... pretty soon they will be considered an enemy of America. Trust me on this one. Pharma is about to lose all of its consumer confidence. I think the death count is up to 17 on the injectable steroid debacle ( with hundreds sick ). Dollar voting and consumer awareness with the advent of the Internet brings on a new world of consumer democracy and education.
I just got home from a press conference and making a speech at a local farmers market about prop #37, the CA GMO labeling iniative. Standing right beside me was Joaquin Content...the president of the CA Dairymans Association. He and I standing together and supporting the consumers right to know what is in their food. He made a great statement about when the consumers told the dairy industry that they no longer wanted BST milk...the diary industry stopped using BST and now label milk as from non BST sources. he said consumers have a right to know and also a right to choose their food. This was a conventional dairyman. I applaud this comment!!! Go Joaquin!!
I think I am going to try and have lunch with Dr. Gregory Miller PhD at CA Dairy Research Foundation
( CDRF ). If he is half as frustrated as his PhD friends at the UC Davis Genomics lab...we will have much to talk about. A strange consortium of unlikely allies appears to be forming and they all hate the FDA!!
If John Sheehan does not watch out...he will be on the end of his own FDA diving board and he will have cut the board off behind himself on the spring board end. "Splash" will take on a very personal meaning to him.
There are sharks ( and mother lions ) in these American waters. The FDA is a special club that protects FOOD INC. The waters arround this club are not so warm or pleasant. As the body count rises with official FDA policy and its great corrupted sterile wisdom...soon they will be regarded as nothing less than murderers.
You are watching change happen before our eyes.
I agree, Mark. Both the agricultural study Sylvia linked to and the CDRF study show that the intrinsic goodness of intensive (ie small) soil stewardship as well as the benefits of raw milk proteins have both been known or suspected all along. Not just by practical visionaries like Ken, Miguel, and Dave, but also the greedier and more malevolent types in corporate and corporate-sponsored gov't agencies. I congratulate the former for holding their ground (pun intended).
Sandor Katz has a very fair-minded chapter on raw milk in his new book "The Art of Fermentation", that I think most of us who post here could agree with. The popularity of this book along with the suppression of the two studies above may be instrumental in changing the dogma that has been too long entrenched in our agricultural and medical industries. The idea that microbes are important players in what happens inside our bodies via our microbiome is just now gaining traction with the increasing scientific evidence. This trifecta of scientific works lends credence to the idea that we can greatly affect the outcome of our symbiosis with these life forms - either for good or for bad. Thus this body of evidence should serve to inform our current generation's regulators of their heretofore simplistic and sometimes ignorant way of dealing with them.
Huge breaking news!
RAWMI has negotiated accessible reasonable insurance for Qualified Microdairies. Last week Charlotte Smith at Champoeg Creamery ( RAWMI Listed Dairy )was quoted $10,000 per year for her Oregon micro dairy raw milk business. Today the bids came in....after RAWMI explained the risk reduction program, the same coverage with a $750 price tag.
Charlotte is elated....so am I. Risk management pays off in so many ways.
I'm back and apologize for the extended absence, but life happens as do curve balls.
A lot of the discourse here is very complex for those that aren't hardcore long time readers. I try to digest as much as possible, but understand that it is intimidating for casual readers who probably care very much about the food choice issues being discussed, raw milk in particular, but maybe are not interested in the political and religious tangents and are likely put off by them. If we are to bring them on board to become active in posting here and or supporting the food choice movement, we need to somehow make them feel more welcome without fear of being scolded for ignorance.
I'd like to point out a simple distinction for those people, that is highlighted in this article between the dairy producers and the processors in layman terms, please correct me if I'm wrong.
Dairy producers are the actual farmers that feed and milk the cows and are responsible for the ethical and procedural day to day activities, overall animal and milk hygiene, then take the milk from the cow to sell either consumers directly, or to processors.
Processors are middlemen that take the "product" and zap it (pasteurization) so that it can be more easily and legally distributed in large volumes. My perception is that this is where most of the profit in this industry is made, and it's interests are what legal authorities protect (surprise!)
The health and risk issues of raw milk are muddled purposely to confuse the general public and instill doubt and fear in order to control availability, aided by biased corporate media propaganda.
Kudos to David for shining a bright light on these distortions. Let's keep it simple, civil and educational. Our children's children's future depends on it.
It is fascinating how action and time filters and sorts out all of the initial negative crap that was thrown at RAWMI. Now after washing off the tomatoes, fresh manure and making some changes...and just moving forward and acting every day, RAWMI has done what others could not do. It brought real value to consumers and their farmers. We have just begun....but what a great beginning. According to Pete Kennedy his contacts in the insurance community say report that insurance for raw milk is disappearing fast....and would be gone soon. Our work at RAWMI demonstrated the consistent ability to reduce risk....insurance responded and now we have insurance companies bidding for he business at reasonable rates.
Marler and all those that mocked RAWMI....hold your tomatoes. Consistent, step by step, strategic, little by litlle Action is our moto. We do not give up the ground we take.
But, but, but Mark... didn't you hear that liability insurance is for cowards?
LOL!!
Good news Mark and well done.
Sometimes silence is a better option, just something to consider when you sit in front of the computer.
Insurance may be for cowards....but....even cowards can not sell into a store or a farmers market with out insurance. Insurance is the silent omni-potent regulator.
Slight paranoia, and a simple insurance policy plus an effective RAMP program lets me sleep very well at night. If all the insurance providers had gone PMO-Marler-FDA. We would have all been totally hosed.
Today is a great new day for Raw Milk. According to my friends that source these policies, carriers are competing to cover this new RAWMI low risk category of raw milk!!
Mark
Excellent!
Yes, that's quite a savings! And do you carry insurance for your cheese-making, Bill?
yes = "insurance is for cowards" ... but that's irrelevant .... The fact that a raw milk dairy can now get insurance, is the game-changer. It means the Babylonians get their cut of the profitability ... which is really all the apparatchiks in the Establishment want to hear
let's see those actuarial tables, please. If the govt. wants a piece of paper, I'll give them a piece of paper ... whatever it takes to keep the REAL MILK flowing
In your reactionary petit-bourgeois rantings there is one nugget of truth, Watson:
PROFITABILITY. That is all that our ruling class cares about. Welcome to capitalism.
Don't know what the "Babylonians" have to do with this. Babylon hasn't existed for thousands of years. And surely, like any early civilization, it had a complex class structure not much unlike our own modern capitalist class structure.
" . . . Capitalist class structure - you mean, like this: http://dailybail.com/home/cartoon-calvin-and-hobbes-explain-modern-capit...
Heh! We've gotta open it up and have free markets or we're all doomed. Not liberal, not repuglican, not libertarian - bah! - not political. Or at least not politically motivated in society, or we're done for.
Mark, just curious about the Girl Scouts. Are they still coming to your farm to earn a badge?
Mark, Who said insurance was for cowards? I must have missed that
Alvin Schlangen.
Welcome to the dog-eat-dog Ayn Rand utopia that is American "libertarianism." I can't blame public health for wanting to shut down these idiots. If the raw milk movement was actually run by competent professional and progressive dairy farmers, instead of right-wing tea party wackos, we wouldn't have these kinds of problems...
Bill,
“The real problem is in the hearts and minds of men. It is easier to denature plutonium than to denature the evil spirit of man.”
Albert Einstein
I certainly would not want to live under your impertinent, arrogant and condescending rule.
Ken
Oh wow, Bill, did you just call Alvin an idiot? I sure hope you didn't.
Oh, he did. Anyone who disagrees with Bill or lives or believes in any way that differs from his utopian bill-ocracy is bound to get peppered with dozens of insulting epithets and phrases - this is the charity and kindness of socialism -sure he is winning many converts.
Ron Paul, Joel Salatin, Max Kane, bible believing Christians, libertarians, and all these mysterious "leaders of the raw milk movement," (as if a movement has any one set of "leaders," since what is going on with raw milk varies greatly across the nation state by state), wonder who else he will add to his long list of undesirables needing re-educated at the school of Bill. I am sure enrollment is high and a wait list is required...
John, next time you get in a car accident, try telling the police that "liability insurance is for cowards", and see what happens.
Please take note -- I'm not in favor the police. In fact, I'd like to see your beloved "constitutional sheriff" abolished altogether, along with the military, FBI, private militias, and all other private and public police forces. But since we live in a violent, alienated, class-divided society (yes, this wonderful "constitutional Republic" that our aristocratic "founding fathers" dreamed up) that requires private property and corporations in order to allocate artificially scare resources, WE as food producers/processors/distribtuers have the responsibility of retaining liability insurance.
That's just reality, whether you like it or not. To do otherwise is incredibly irresponsible, and I want nothing to do with such negligence.
And yes, for the record, I think Alvin is an idiot for saying that. Liability insurance is for producers who take responsibility. Those who make such outrageous claims are probably irresponsible and reckless, and are taking gambles on other people's lives.
You can count me out of that game.
Gordon....
This is all a grand game of chess with variants of "strategic war games" and a touch of hide and seek. What we need to do today to build markets, and educate is not what we will be doing later when justice is delivered and truth is revealed. When the FDA is forcefully evolved, Sheehan is either Jailed or indicted as "the head that was rolled" to save higher ups at the FDA....that will be the day. Until then, turn the other cheak, serve and feed the people...what ever it takes. Pride be damned.
"All too often, opinions about nutrition are disseminated with religious zeal, as if gospel. I have argued before for the separation of church and plate, and reaffirm my own commitment to it here. I have my own opinions about nutrition. But when they are just opinions, I am careful to treat them as such.
At its best, nutrition is science. That doesn't make it perfect. Our scientific understanding is not perfect in any field, and nutrition is far from an exception. But all opinions about a science must at least run the gauntlet of what we do know. Those that cannot do so and survive are hearsay."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/raw-food-diet_b_2015598.html
Kristen
I agree, however sometimes it takes a certain amount of grass roots zeal to expose a flawed science that has become widely accepted and entrenched amongst the masses and in bureaucratic circles.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/10/anti-fluoride_group...
Ken
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/features/fluoride-childrens-he...
Wow, Ken. I would think that after all these years and the known toxic effects of fluoride, people would be up in arms about starting a water poisoning ignominious failure. Amazing, yet when people have had mis-information pounded into their head on a daily basis, I suppose it is expected.
Speaking of fluoride, Sylvia, I was finally able to find a small farm in north Illinois that has raw milk available. Since they are in the Chicago metro area spawl, I asked if the cows drink water that has been fluoridated. The rep answering my email didn't know, and is checking into it. Seems to me, if your cow's drinking fluoride, you're drinking fluoride. Bon Apetit.
tomm
I believe you are correct, if that cow is drinking water with added chemicals, then it will end up in your body at some point.
I don’t consider church and religion to be one and the same and I believe Einstein understood this when he stated, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.
Ken
Yes, it's always the dissident who's being "zealous" and "strident", while the totalitarian zeal of the status quo's propaganda is taken as the normative quiet baseline. It's like someone's blasting a stereo, and when people have to shout to be heard, the noisemaker says, "Why are you shouting?", pretending the stereo's not blasting.
This, certainly, is a lie:
"But all opinions about a science must at least run the gauntlet of what we do know. "
If enough power backs up a lie, science is meaningless. Just look at GMO safety, or maintenance antibiotic safety, or the whole Big Lie that industrial ag outproduces organic and is necessary to Feed the World (TM). We've known for years that the truth is the opposite of system lies, but they just keep chugging along, and most people, even most "educated, progressive" people, believe them.
"totalitarian zeal of the status quo"
Funny, Russ. Honestly, though, I think your rhetoric is over the top here. Yes, we all know that much of the scientific establishment is bought and paid for by big business. This is nothing new. What I object to is your characterization of this as "totalitarian" -- a word that has become so meaningless because of overuse by both liberal "progressives" and rightists of various persuasions.
Of course, always lost in the Western liberal narratives about 20th century "totalitarianism", is that it was merely Western civilization inflicting upon itself what it had done to indigenous peoples for the centuries prior. I think some more Domenico Losurdo is in line:
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=domenico+losurdo...
Totalitarian means seeking total domination. It's perfectly clear, and either applies or it doesn't. It clearly applies to corporatism in general and the likes of Monsanto and Cargill in particular.
But we're all familiar with your running interference for the pro-Monsanto trolls on this site like "milkyway". Just one example of how your specific actions and positions tend to be pro-corporate, regardless of your radical chic rhetoric.
I agree with Losrudo's critique. "Totalitarianism" is meaningless in the western liberal and conservative discourses. It ignores the totality of history, especially as it regards the class struggle, which brought about the sociopolitical systems those narratives brand as "totalitarian."
Perhaps you can point to where Milky Way said something pro-Monsanto. I have not seen such a comment from Milky Way. Your rhetoric against MW is reactionary, Russ. Your rhetoric in general is petit-bourgeois liberalism. Unless you actually work in the dairy industry and build solidarity with progressive dairy farmers through labor (and not just through spending money on a commodity in the marketplace, such as fluid raw milk), your critiques are just chic-radical rhetoric.
Anyone who doesn't start out calling for the abolition of GMOs and maintenance antibiotics, and grain subsidies in general (the main cause of the bad health effects of industrial ag), but who then presumes to talk about "Food Safety", is a pro-Monsanto hack, whether intentional or not. (But my understanding is that MW is some kind of technician. So there it must be intentional.)
It looks like my retort to your tedious and pointless quarrelsomeness threw you, since you were unable to do anything but childishly repeat my exact phrases. The fact remains that I consistently call for the abolition of the system including rejection of it in detail as much as possible, while you throw around terms and names but somehow always come down on the side of the capitalist police where it comes to the details. That's the essence of radical chic liberalism, which is why I used that term. The basic temperament flaw of wanting to "reason with" someone obviously opposed to the basic premises of the discussion, as MW is, is also typical of liberals. It's a microcosm of preferring to try to appease the FDA and its state flunkeys rather than face up to the fact of their indelible fascism. It's a microcosm of recognizing the legitimacy of the corporate system in general.
(To repeat what I said previously, a small farmer or processor may feel unable, for practical reasons, to fully join in an honest public discussion of the FDA, USDA etc. But that's no reason for active citizens and real food customers not to have that discussion to the hilt, laying bare what this government is and trying to figure out ways to do without it, and educating as many people as possible about that. That's part of the way citizens can help small farmers and the community food movement in general. So is this blog more of a farmers' technical discussion, in which case the partial anti-FDA rhetoric is gratuitous, or a movement discussion, in which case the appeasement rhetoric and prescriptions are inappropriate? Because it's now a hybrid, there's lots of confusion about principles, goals, and what kinds of actions one should attempt in the first place.)
I get it Russ. Anyone who doesn't start with the same *a priori* assumptions as you is engaged in "appeasment rhetoric" for the "state flunkeys" of the FDA and recognizes the "legitimacy of the corporate system", etc, etc...
I don't expect people in this movement to share all of my assumptions, but I do expect them to use reason and facts, and to keep the raw milk issue in perspective. Raw milk is a commerce and public health issue, NOT a civil liberties issue. And no, Russ, the FDA is not "fascist." You display your liberalism when you make such ridiculous claims.
Any self-respecting radical recognizes that Fascism is much more than just a top-down imposition of authoritarianism by the bourgeois state. Fascism happens when capitalism is in crises, and the institutions of bourgeois democracy can no longer suffice to contain the class struggle. Fascism requires the bottom-up takeover of the state apparatuses (police & military) by right-wing nationalist vigilantes. This is precisely what is happening in Greece as we speak with Golden Dawn, and is what happened in Germany of the 1920's and 30's with the FreiKorp.
Please see the below article about the Fascist takeover currently happening in Greece:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/greeks-fascist-homophobes-have-gay-jesus-...
I think if you were to talk to most public health workers, you'd find more to agree on than disagree on, Russ. Many share our concerns about GMOs and industrial agriculture. They are not Fascists. They are part of the working class.
Russ, let's continue this conversation off-blog. Can you email me? My address is wicheesemaker@gmail.com
The sites URL Vice.com is apropos.
Ideological inclinations have the potential to infuse a spirit of competition and rivalry among individuals, institutions, and nations. It creates an, “us against them” mentality when in reality as Mother Teresa states, “If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other”.
She also states, “Love is a fruit in season at all times, and within reach of EVERY hand”.
I emphasize “every” because we all have the freedom to choose between the positive or negative attributes of our human nature.
Ken
Here is a question from a city-dweller:
Any opinions on the value of a periodical entitled "Countryside & Small Stock Journal?"
Thanks,
Mr J. Ingvar Odegaard
"Definition of PROMOTER
1: one that promotes; especially : one who assumes the financial responsibilities of a sporting event (as a boxing match) including contracting with the principals, renting the site, and collecting gate receipts
Definition of LEADER
2: a person who leads: as
a : guide, conductor
b (1) : a person who directs a military force or unit (2) : a person who has commanding authority or influence
c (1) : the principal officer of a British political party (2) : a party member chosen to manage party activities in a legislative body (3) : such a party member presiding over the whole legislative body when the party constitutes a majority
d (1) : conductor c (2) : a first or principal performer of a group"
Per Merriam-Webster the "raw milk" movement doesn't have a "leader" only various promoters. I have never heard of any one person being "chosen" to lead; only various people promoting raw dairy, along with a persons right to choose what they consume etc.
My guess is that Bill won't answer my question about insurance because he doesn't have any.
Kturner,
I do have liability insurance... for the car I drive.
My cheese is not on the market yet, so there is no reason why I'd need food product liability insurance at this point in time. The first batch becomes legal to sell on December 12th. So I begin the hunt for liability insurance next week.
Best of luck, Bill. I'm sure it will be excellent cheese!
David, thanks for the excellent and important reporting on this. I registered and logged in to see whether the article had been re-posted. In order to register, I had to agree to the site terms and conditions, which include this statement: "Public Access. Datasets, literature, tools and other materials obtained from the public database and/or government agencies will be freely available and in the public domain of the portal in order to encourage others to join the IMGC."
Elizabeth Rich
Just to be clear--in the above post I was talking about registering and logging in to the IMGC site to check on the article, not logging in to this site. I was commenting on the irony of the IMGC making me agree to its public access terms, which provide that its site content will be "freely available and in the public domain," then blocking my access to the raw milk article. (I was not suggesting that David should re-post the copyrighted article.)
Elizabeth Rich
David - have you been able to find out any newer information why the article "Evidence Around Raw Milk" can't be accessed from the IMGC website anymore? There is a link to click to request a copy of it, but I wonder if it really works.
Deborah, the article, "Evidence around raw milk", was pulled from the site by the International Milk Genomics Consortium, which is part of the University of California, Davis. As Elizabeth suggests in her comment, the article is copyrighted. I have tried to get permission to publish it, as is required for a copyrighted article. An official at the IMGC told me the permission would need to come from the California Dairy Research Foundation. I have emailed and phoned the CDRF's executive director, Dr. Gonca Pasin, and have received no response to any of my messages.
So, is Edward Davis someone from IMGC or someone from UC - Davis? This is what is confusing me.
Sorry meant to ask if he was from UC - Davis or California Dairy Research Foundation.
Ok, never mind David, I see that this is very complicated...the IMGC, CDRF & UC - Davis are basically all inter-twined. So, this just doesn't make sense, why would they pull their own article?!
Basically, the IMGC is an academic research organization that is part of UC Davis. It gets at least some of its funding from CDRF, which is a foundation that is an offshoot of the California dairy industry. The CDRF appears to have ordered IMGC to pull the article at the behest of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The CDRF bowed to the FDA's demand, presumably because the FDA regulates the dairy industry, and can make life very difficult for dairies and processors it doesn't like, such as those in California. The FDA also provides lots of funding to state regulators and universities, so has a good deal of leverage that way.
What a shame that they did this. Amazing that a government agency can have such power! I wonder if anyone saved a copy of the article before it was pulled. I also wonder if an investigative reporter can do something about this. Indeed, what is the FDA worried about?!
Yes, Gary Cox wrote immediately after my original post that he has a copy of the article and is willing to share it:
Contact him at dcoxlaw@columbus.rr.com.
The FDA seems to be worried about two things: First is something called "Truth", as in the truth about raw milk's health benefits, and how pasteurization appears to negate those benefits. Second, FDA is increasingly concerned that conventional dairy farmers will gravitate toward selling raw milk as a realistic economic alternative to being exploited by the corruption that dominates the conventional industry. On this latter point, yesterday's New York Times had an in-depth exploration of the dairy industry's corruption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/business/in-dairy-industry-consolidati...
Thanks, David, I have written to Gary. Also, the article you mentioned was quite interesting. It is very obvious that it is all about the money & monopoly with nothing to do about what is best to the public that consumes the product.
Just received a copy of that article that had been "pulled". Now the question is...was Anna Petherick (the writer of the article) threatened and/or coerced by the FDS into taking it of the Splash website!?!
Opps, FDA not FDS!! Darned fingers!
I don't think Anna Petherick had anything to say about any of these happenings. She was the writer of the article, but once she completed it, the consortium and foundation took control.
You're correct, David, in fact, she didn't even know it was taken off the Splash website.
Academic freedom is under assault from all sides. Its not just FDA. It is the combination of corporate power and reactionary political forces that stifles academic freedom.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/northeastern-illinois-university-cu...
http://eduoptimists.blogspot.com/2012/02/wisconsin-legislators-attack-ac...
Its worth noting that Steve Nass (the anti-A.F. legislator mentioned in the latter article) is also a raw milk supporter, proving once again that we can't let this raw milk issue dominate our political perspective to the exclusion of larger socioeconomic and political issues. If we are willing to sacrifice democracy, public welfare, and civil rights on the alter of this supposed "private food rights" then we are making a huge mistake.
This effort of the FDA and their henchmen at (in our case) MN Dept of Ag getting all excited about a few hundred families that are independent and confident enough to build a private food club in Minnesota, is ALL about the business of mass produced commodity food vs local, sustainable farms. The history of the exodus of family farms over the past 20 -30 years should provide an obvious working demonstration of the intent of AGRI-business in this country, and the reduction in the capacity to be truly healthy in this ever socialist society. When those commentors are looking for more real info about private vs public contract, it must be said that our regulators and our courts have confused the issue to such a degree that we don't quite understand how anything to do with food can ever be private again, except for hand to hand exchange. Our food club option to that is with real farm animal ownership. While it is not obvious that food production (in itself) is NOT commerce, only becomes commerce when sold for resale or processing, it becomes very much apparent why the business of agriculture is so intent on making every bit of food production fit those parameters and therefore be regulated. Our model for private food production and access in Minnesota is fashioned after the contracts that Aajonus developed for use in CA and across the country, to allow consuming families to commit and invest in their food supply, to own their food and have PRIVATE connections to their farm sources. NO resale, NOT FOR SALE, means that every statute that can be added to the mountain of regulations already in place, can NOT affect the activity of a group of people that own their food. We need to make some large strides toward an even more sizable community of like-minded, health and rights conscious families, that will not tolerate the theft of any more of our food and health freedom. The foundation for all of this may remain the Weston A Price Foundation and their supported Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, both of which played a major role in allowing this organic farmer and natural health promoter to stand among the supportive families in the Twin Cities metro area in Minnesota and just say NO to the MDA and FDA. This farmer spent a lot of time researching constitutional and common law to support his stand, but not a dime on legal fees. The foundations above were responsible for taking on that project with support from a growing number of their members who fully understand what is at stake. Private contract is much more common than you might think, especially when you understand that the English language is being taken away from us when our words take on a whole new meaning when applied to statutes that are meant to limit our freedom. The FDA has their own meaning for the words 'for sale' in that every time we use it to describe the exchange of something for value, they will attempt to control that 'sale' as if it were public retail sale. The Weston A Price Conference comes to Santa Clara, CA next weekend for a revival in food rights energy that has been hampered for many months by criminal cases across the country. With a major win (and a draw) in MN this fall, we intend to turn this 'slow food' type of mentality into the new fast food, RAW, and start to build some major food systems around family farms and informed families that will use tools like www.farmmatch.com to connect with their local source of energy. REAL FOOD!