stretch.jpg

There’s something weird….no, make that sinister….going on in the Minnesota prosecution of raw dairy farmers. 

 

I’ve written a number of times about the apparent prosecution effort to link a single uninvestigated illness from campylobacter to Alvin Schlangen, the Minnesota farmer who goes on trial beginning next Tuesday

 

Apparently concerned that a single illness, which could well have come from fast food the sickened individual was consuming at the same time as raw milk, won’t have much of an impact, the state is reaching even further afield: It seems prepared to make the suggestion that illnesses linked much more tightly to another dairy–this one owned by Michael Hartmann–could be connected to Schlangen as well. Presumably the purpose would be to scare the jury into believing that raw milk is inherently dangerous, in hopes of convicting Schlangen. 

 

Schlangen’s lawyear, Nathan Hansen, received what at first glance seemed a puzzling written communication from the Stearns County prosecutor’s office earlier this week.  It was an affidavit from the Minnesota Public Health Veterinarian, Joni Scheftel, explaining the connection between an outbreak of E.coli O157:H7 among eight people in May 2010, and farmer Michael Hartmann. 

 

Hartmann has contested the state’s ongoing prosecution of him in connection with that now-three-year-old episode. The affidavit was a response to Hartmann’s contention that the pathogens that sickened individuals weren’t found in his milk, and thus there wasn’t a conclusive association between his milk and the illnesses. The state vet argues in the affidavit that such a connection need not be made based on protocol used to link illnesses to food in general; the pathogen found in several ill individuals who consumed Hartmann raw milk was found in areas of the Hartmann farm, the state has said. 

 

Indeed, a hearing on Hartmann’s motion to quash the state’s evidence is due to take place this Monday, the day before the Schlangen jury trial gets under way.  And just to re-emphasize its determination, the state had a truckload of Hartmann’s food confiscated a couple nights ago as he was driving near his farm. 

 

Why would Schlangen’s lawyer be receiving the state vet’s affidavit in a totally unrelated case? Apparently because the Schlangen prosecutor, William MacPhail, is planning to try to connect illnesses from Hartmann’s milk to Schlangen, and make a second inference about the safety of his milk. Prosecutors don’t just send defense lawyers documents because they are offbeat FYIs.

 

As I’ve pointed out a number of times, the prosecution in two previous criminal cases against farmers Schlangen and Vernon Hershberger of Wisconsin seems to have been weakened by the absence of illnesses that could make the farmers look like bad guys. So the prosecution in this second Schlangen case (and third criminal trial overall), desperate to make such a connection, seems prepared to  go to extreme lengths, to make a nearly unfathomable stretch.  

 

Pete Kennedy, head of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, is astounded by the prosecution’s effort. “I’ve never seen the prosecution in one case use evidence from another case to go after a defendant. It would be outrageous if that happens in the Schlangen case.” 

 

Outrageous doesn’t seem to be any kind of inhibition on the state prosecutors determined to undermine private food sales by farmers in Minnesota. Anything goes. 

**

 

I’ll be speaking Sunday morning (8 a.m.) at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA-MA) annual summer conference in Amherst, MA.  In preparation, I was interviewed, together with Ben Grosscup, a conference organizer, on the What’s For Dinner news site

 

I also did an interview with Derrick Freeman’s Peace News Now show that can be accessed here