FDA Rejects Organic Pastures Petition to Lift Interstate Raw Milk Ban, Accuses Advocates of Welcoming Pathogens
Back in December 2008, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. filed a citizens petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration asking that the agency lift its prohibition on interstate shipments of raw milk on a very limited basis--for milk moving from one state that allows it to a neighboring state that also allows it.
For more than four years, the FDA ignored McAfee’s requests for a decision, despite the fact the FDA is legally obligated to respond within six months. Last year, McAfee filed a suit in U.S. District Court to compel the agency to answer the petition.Finally, just as its deadline for filing a response to the U.S. District court was approaching, four years after the initial petition request, the agency responded...surprise--it rejected the petition.
But the FDA didn’t just reject the limited petition request. As if to say, “You wanted our reaction, huh, you really wanted our reaction?”....the FDA let loose.
In a 31-page assemblage of accusations, tabulations of illnesses from raw milk, and citations of studies, the FDA doesn't give an inch on any suggestions that raw milk might be acceptable in any form. Indeed, early in the document, the FDA author (Michael Landa, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition) states to McAfee that “many raw milk producers and advocates, including yourselves, consider the bacteria present in raw milk, including pathogens which might be present, to be ‘beneficial’ bacteria.”
If you’ve never heard such an accusation before, it is a classic example of a “canard.” That is "a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor," but in reality it is worse than that--it is a particularly vicious accusation meant to foment hatred. Those harboring a particular prejudice might say, “Those people love to (pick your descriptor) live in filth/cheat the poor/practice voodoo.” Blacks and Jews in particular have been victims of canards by mobs and even those in power as a way to foment violence and hatred.
So even though just a small group of raw milk drinkers may consider pathogens to be “beneficial,” the FDA has painted everyone who drinks raw milk with the brush, as in, “They all love pathogens. They are such wackos they don’t care about safety, they don’t care a whit about whether little kids get sick.”
Oh yes, the FDA’s attack does have some specifics. To McAfee’s petition argument that “in California more than 110 million servings of its raw milk products have not found one pathogen in its ‘raw milk’...” the FDA labels the assertion “incorrect. In California there have been nine recalls (quarantines) involving raw milk products since 2006...Seven of them have involved Organic Pastures...”
In response to McAfee’s argument that if raw milk “is safe to sell in California then it should be safe to sell that same raw milk in Nevada or Arizona wherever it is also legal to drink raw milk,” the FDA is similarly unrelenting. “FDA’s decision to regulate only the interstate distribution of raw milk was not based on a determination that intrastate distribution is safe, but rather...this decision was based on FDA’s judgment about the appropriate exercise of federal authority vis-a-vis state authority. Translation: We would have loved to have banned raw milk nationally, but we didn’t think we could get away with it in court challenges.”
There is more, about how warning labels could never substitute for pasteurization, and that children are especially at risk for illness from raw milk (a child being defined as anyone under twenty).
This assertion really says it all, though: “FDA is unaware of any scientific data which have been published since (the 1987 ban on interstate sales) that would cause it to change its opinion on this matter.” In other words, there is nothing to discuss.
McAfee had this comment: "The FDA did not respond to my narrow request. They instead went on a forty-year-old anti-raw-milk rant and misstated facts, including the 1985 Jalisco Cheese incident and its 48 deaths. Those people died from poorly pasteurized cheese, not raw milk!"
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.
“many raw milk producers and advocates, including yourselves, consider the bacteria present in raw milk, including pathogens which might be present, to be ‘beneficial’ bacteria.”
Well, that is twisting words to suit their agenda. They just confirmed, again, they have no wish or desire to work with farmers or the public. Their words only serve to further divide people. that paintbrush goes more than one way. I'll continue to point out their inadequacies, lies, etc.
OT: "women under 40 cases of advanced breast cancer have tripled in the last 30 years. "
Tripled in 30 yrs. All that money that goes to cancer research has lined someones pockets. Instead of finding out the cause of the increase, they'll invent a "new" toxic drug. It's just more proof the govt is nothing more than smoke&mirrors, full of lies and deceit.
http://thunderfeeds.com/reader/news/breast-cancer-on-rise-for-women-unde...
On the bright side, the answer given does not answer the question asked by the Citizens Petition. It instead launches a FDA anti raw milk tirade. One of the key statements made was : because the petition did not concur or advance FDA policy.....your petition is denied. That is an outrageous basis for denial. No American should ever be forced to kiss the Kings ring in order to find favor in a petition process. Blaming the Jalisco pasteurized cheese incident and its 48 deaths on raw milk is an outrageous lie...it was pasteurized cheese!!!!OPDC has not had 9 recalls??? The FDA manufactured data to make their case.
The Citizens Petition process begs this type of abuse. Now that the petition has been answered....we the people can sue them....straight up.
FDA drugs are a leading cause of death in America. The arrogance of a government agency to deny the best scientists in the world is simply a travesty. When I know that the FDA emails to university researchers telling them to take down publications so that the general public can not see the hard core evidence of the value of raw milk. These emails are on a hidden hard drive...
The FDA has just affirmed their criminal affiliations...they are Food Inc. They have the blood of the immune depressed and the 4000 dead asthmatics thst die every year with FDA approved asthma inhalers in their hands
Can not wait to bring these FDA lies to court. I hope there is support for this. They may be able lie in their unresponsive response...but if you lie to a judge....you are screwed.
The FDA is trying every maneuver possible to avoid court. The truth will expose them in all of their corrupt fraud.
Just to establish outrageous.....in 2006, 1600 people were sickened and 7 were hospitalized from a CDFA pasteurized creamery outbreak of campylobacter. There was no "Press Release" and the state and Feds buried the incident and the creamery restarted in three hours.
Bias anyone??? Extreme bias anyone???? Cantaloupe kills 34 people and it is freely shipped all over America. Oysters kill 13 people per year....they are shipped everywhere.
Raw milk has killed no one and it is stopped at all state line borders. Pasteurized milk kills 77 since 1972 and the FDA swears that pasteurization is a warranty and guarantee of safety.
This is blatant bias....clear and arrogant corruption. The big lie on steroids
The dairy and creamery were part of a prison vocational program - the recalled milk was not sold to the public.
That doesn't work for cow shares and food clubs; and don't get us started on the criminal justice system.
David, where did you hear "a small group of raw milk drinkers may consider pathogens to be beneficial"?
I've never seen or heard anyone say that any of the so called pathogens were actually beneficial.
And calling them "so called" is not the same as calling them beneficial.
Aajonus Vonderplanitz of Right to Choose Healthy has written and spoken frequently that we should welcome pathogens into foods like raw milk because they are beneficial. Some of his followers agree with his view, but my sense is they are a small minority of raw milk drinkers.
David
Bacteria of all types are beneficial and necessary. They continually evolve in order to adapt to their environment. Any attempt by us to control and eradicate them will be countered in kind.
My belief is that if we encourage exposure we will be much better off. The implications are grim if we continue with our belligerent manipulation and alienation of these minute life forms.
The inescapable reality of this world is that there is suffering and death our disdain for these microscopic creatures will only acerbate the complexity of disease and chronic suffering.
Ken
David,
Aajonus Vonderplanitz said in the June 2000 issue of The Latest magazine:
1. Pigs and monkeys can be kept too clean.
2. Bacteria and virus are naturally present in the company of degenerative tissue but are not the cause of degenerative tissue. They are the cleanup-crew for degenerative tissue.
3. As part of her doctoral studies in Toronto, Canada, Dr. Sara Arab injected verotoxin (bacterial byproduct) from E.coli directly into human astrocytoma (malignant tumors of the brain) that had been grown in mice.After a single injection, within 7-15 days both the tumors and their blood-vessels completely dissolved.
4. Joel Weinstock, a gastroenterologist who heads a research team at University of Iowa, asked six patients with intractable inflammatory bowel-disease to quaff worm-eggs in a liquid solution, specifically the eggs of Trichurissuis, a whipworm (parasite that looks like a whip) normally found in pigs. Within about two weeks, five of the six patients went into remission - for up to five months.
5. Jon Monroe, Director, New Science, tried in a project “to avoid diseases caused by viruses. The assumption was that viruses were pathogens and should be avoided.” But each of the subjects became depressed. With the reintroduction of virus, the depression-symptoms disappeared along with the return of colds and flu.
6. Monroe learned that “viruses can carry information from one individual to another and from one species to another. They are in reality, pathways within the environment for all living things to share critical information.
Do you think he's nuts?
Mike, I think it would be interesting to hear what these researchers actually have to say about their work, and not just Aajonus's interpretation of it.
"The permaculture principle of turning problems into solutions goes hand in hand with one of the main ideas at the core of permaculture: working with nature rather than against it.
Don't waste your money, time and energy by trying to force something that nature never intended to happen. Look creatively at what you already have. Try to see the benefits and look at ways to use the situation to your advantage.
"What I like best about this permaculture principle is that it applies to the rest of our life as well. Next time you face a problem remember this principle and search for the good in the situation. It's always there, all it takes is the willingness to see it"
http://www.tropicalpermaculture.com/permaculture-principles-4.html
Using bioremediation to heal a polluted and diseased bioregion, Permaculture is an awesome strategy for taking care of our own backyard. A permaculturist is concerned with the health and stability of a system, and practices permaculture because the general abuse of our environment has led to a disintegration of many ecological systems. This disintegration has had dire consequences for the diversity of species, the cleanliness of air and water, the fertility of soil, and the general health of humanity and life forms altogether.
Permaculture can be considered another bioremediation technique. It restores the ecology of a system by designing in natural elements like microrryzal fungi and organic material to recreate complete soil, trees to remove CO2 depletion and generate oxygen, plants for human health and plants for habitats. Where the land has been degraded ruined by overgrazing, deforestation, dams, invasion of exotics, degradation of habitat, destruction of water quality, ad nauseum, permaculture addresses these sorry conditions with an integrated design, not an isolated mechanism for rectifying one condition.
Many of the permaculture strategies are based on reducing the impact on the land by reducing the need for extractive technologies and transportation. The axiom of Permaculture that the problem is the solution reveals the willingness of designers to work with what they have, not with what they can buy, extract, import, manufacture, or throw away. Our strategies will be low-impact and low-tech so that more problems are not created in the effort to solve one. A permaculture remediation project is as sophisticated as any environmental scientist’s solution, but the original source of knowledge deeply affects the process and the outcome.
There is a definite place is our excessively polluted world for technologies which can extract pollutants such as radioactive isotopes, PCB’s, pesticides, and the like. But bioremediation does not remain the domain of ecological technology any more than your body’s health is administrated to by the modern medical system. Where natural systems prevail, natural designers must administrate. It’s only natural.
http://egofelix.com/6746-bioregionalism-and-your-backyard
If we can see our bodies as ecosystems filled with microbes,then we can apply permaculture design principles to improve the health of our bodies.
A perceived problem could be that some microbes are reproducing much faster relative to the other microbes in the system than they normally do. Doctors would call this a bacterial infection. If we consider the system as a whole , we may be able to understand why this is happening. One of a microbes functions in the system is that of "natures janitor". Some types of microbes are more virulent ( virile ---meaning strong or resistant to extreme situations). Most of our microbiome do best under normal conditions .These microbes dominate in sheer numbers.A small number of our microbes do better in extreme conditions.They are an important part of our microbiome even though under normal conditions they occur in very small numbers. These microbes are called extremophiles. They are important when some kind of toxic substance has contaminated our bodies.The most numerous types of microbes do not have the resistance or virulence required to detoxify these contaminants.Their reproduction rate falls. The extremophiles have less competition for resources and so increase rapidly in number at the site of the toxic contamination. This is called bioremediation if we are talking about the environment outside of our bodies. Inside our bodies it is called medical bioremediation. What the extremophiles are doing is using the toxin as one source of energy to grow. In the process the toxin is broken down until the level of atoms at which point the extremophile can encapsulate a toxic atom such as arsenic,aluminum, lead etc. so that it can be harmlessly eliminated from our system. These janitors are doing very important work and rather than being attacked with antibiotics the elimination process should be supported.At some point the symptoms of elimination may be too much and intervention to give the body a rest may need to be taken. After the toxins have been reduced to a level that does not suppress our usually dominant microbes they can help participate in further clean up and healing.The extremophiles will slow their reproduction rate and the system will return to it's previous state EXCEPT that now it will function better than before because the toxic buildup has been reduced. Occasional bouts of bioremediation will keep our bodies functioning better.The buildup of toxins in our bodies requires the regular intervention by the extremophiles in our microbiome in order to decrease the rate at which we age.
miguel
Does a 31-page assemblage of accusations really give the FDA the authority to block interstate commerce of raw milk to consumers that clearly want it especially since they themselves say they are only regulating it and that this decision was based on FDA’s judgement about the appropriate exercise of federal authority in relation to state authority.
I guess that's referring to how, in talking about microbial balance and how in a natural microbe ecology beneficial microbes keep potentially harmful ones in check, some people may let their rhetoric get carried away and say there's no such thing as potentially harmful ones. But I don't recall seeing much of that.
On that subject, a recent study from the University of Leipzig found that ingested Roundup disproportionately suppresses beneficial gut bacteria while sparing potentially harmful strains, leaving them an open field.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1452...
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/roundup-herbicide-linked-overgrowth-dea...
The bacteria that can survive in the presence of RoundUp or heavy metals or antibiotics or disinfectants are the only ones that can break these substances down so that they can be eliminated. Metabolizing a toxic substance often leaves toxic waste products.In a very diverse system,the toxic waste products will be further broken down by other microbes until a long chain of metabolizing results in waste products that can be eliminated by the body without harmful effects. When the diversity in the microbiome is lacking, the body can only store these toxic substances until a crisis occurs. Are these microbes to be blamed for their toxic byproducts or is it the lack of the rest of the team in our micro biome that leads to disease?
miguel
Hi Miguel.
I'm not normally a betting man, but I'd be willing to wager that no amount of probiotic diversity in the microbiome will protect a person from acute toxicity of a small but lethal dose of cyanide or ricin.
Also, simply because an organism can survive in a certain medium (i.e. RoundUp, heavy metals, antibiotics, disinfectants, etc) doesn't mean that it is capable of breaking down that substance. I think you are making more pseudoscientific claims here.
There are many microorganisms which can survive adverse enviroments (including high temperatures, such as pasteurization) by forming a spore. The spore, of course, is a dormant form of the organism, and so is, almost by definition, incapable of metabolizing the conditions from which the spore was formed to protect the organism.
Case in point: Clostridium Botulinum, commonly known as Botulism. Its a spore former. That's why it can survive the boiling water temperatures when you can fruits and vegetables. But even after it survives the boiling water bath, it cannot grow in the subsequent medium if the pH is below 4.6. On the other hand, if the pH is above 4.6, it can grow and produce a deadly toxin. Fortunate for us, that toxin is not heat-stable, and can be broken down by re-boiling. I'm not aware of any microbe that is capable of breaking it down, however.
Also, fortunate for us, most human pathogens are not spore formers. Clostridia species are the notable exception. Almost all of the pathogens of concern in dairy products can be killed by common sanitizers used in the dairy industry, to break pathogen cycles on food handling equipment.
Just because a scientific-sounding explanation is convenient for the ideological purposes of the raw milk movement doesn't mean it is based on real science. Your claim above is a great example of self-serving pseudoscience, which seems so pervasive in the raw milk movement, unfortunately. It doesn't help our credibility with the broader public.
What is it in the soil that breaks down toxic chemicals like RoundUp? What can take a toxic compound like gold chloride and break it down into something not only harmless but useful to our bodies?
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-10/03/bacteria-turning-liquid-i...
miguel
That's an interesting anecdote, Miguel, but it doesn't prove what you said above. Like I said, I'd be willing to wager that no amount of probiotic diversity in the microbiome will prevent acute toxicity from a small but lethal does of cyanide or ricin.
I don't see your point. A pea size piece of lead between the eyes can be fatal in spite of the diversity of your microbiome. Fertile soil does take rotten, stinking organic matter and purify it.This is accomplished not by a few microbes but by whole team of microbes each playing it's part to take dead things and decompose them into nutrients that are food for living organisms. I wouldn't eat some dead animal road kill,but after a time in the compost pile it is safe to use to grow vegetables in. To separate one of these microbes out of the mix,study it's waste products, and label it a bad bacteria is to miss the fact that it's waste products do not accumulate in the compost to a level that is toxic because they are broken down further by other microbes in the compost pile.
The concept of the pathogen serves your purpose,which is to use fear of the invisible to control others. Labels like good and bad depend on context and point of view.
miguel
"Labels like good and bad depend on context"
I agree with you about this, Miguel. Listeria, in a compost pile, is not a bad thing. In my cheese, though, it is definitely bad. There's a reason I don't go digging through a compost pile right before I make cheese.
Talk about "fear of the invisible to control others", Miguel, brings to mind religion and god.
Listeria, on the other hand, is perfectly visible under a microscope or on a laboratory plate. God... not so much.
George Carlin on religion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPOfurmrjxo
Dr Huber (expert on consequences of GMOs and Roundup)... the rise in 'Fusarium' fungus is natures way of digesting Roundup. In Canada anyway, they have large conferences just on Fusarium management now...if only they understood how their chemical use has prompted nature to respond!
Some of you might find this article interesting. Dr. Huber is featured somewhat. It's called Polluted America. Good reading, although not exactly a day-brightener.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/polluted-america-gmo-manmade-biological-thr...
"The bacteria that can survive in the presence of RoundUp or heavy metals or antibiotics or disinfectants are the only ones that can break these substances down so that they can be eliminated..."
Miguel, I gather from what you are saying that establishment textbooks will typically blame food poisoning caused by pesticides, heavy metals, antibiotics, disinfectants... on "the usual suspects" ie microbes? This keeps Big Ag well out of the picture as the cause of disease, doesn't it.
If you've read my previous posts you know the estab has a long history of blaming disease that they really cause, on microbes: such as their blaming sex and hiv for the health problems caused by them poisoning people with AZT, they blamed "syphilis' for causing demetia when it was actually caused by their "treatment", mercury, causing heavy metal poisoning in the brain, etc etc.
Yes, their war on Nature is relentless. Divert your attention with one hand, pull off the trick with the other.
Fortunately, we do have real world evidence to help us, such as Ken's recent post about his first hand observations of life long benefits with no disease, from raw milk, for so many different people. I guess some will call this psuedoscience, as it is the opposite of what establishment textbooks would predict.
While I consider "pathogens" to be a non issue with naturally produced raw dairy (it's probably the safest food we can consume), I do seek to learn about the proper way to can, smoke and salt meats, etc. These types of things may involve pathogen issues, and given how corrupt the estab is, looks like each of us has to make the call ourselves, as to what the truth is.
here's a vid of an old timer smoking a hog. He say's toward the end how he recently took a bacon he had smoked 7 years ago, cut it open, and it looked as good as the day he smoked it, and was delicious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6UkXhHUTfM
It is hard to discuss "pathogens" when no one has a good definition for the word. You are right that bacteria take the blame for disease caused by the industrialization of food production. Canning is like pasteurization (sterilization). Smoking and salting meat is a fermentation process involving lactic acid bacteria similar to making cheese. The animal needs to be fed correctly in order for the meat to be safe to eat.Then the fermentation needs to be done properly.
I've heard people in this forum talking about people dying from cantelope. so for fun I punched this in google to see what the estab is promoting here, and find this estab article saying 13 people died from listeria in cantelope in the worst food borne illness in a decade...
That lawyer Marler is quoted in the article talking about the dangers of food (it is a small world isn't it, he's the guy that runs that website about "raw milk facts" isn't he, with "real life stories", only thing is all these "real stories' are taken from the handful of alledged raw milk disease stories, none from the enormous numbers of raw milk healing stories...)
Anyway, if, and I say if, this cantelope sickness story really had anything to do with cantelope, then how would it be explained? I'm curious if Miguel has any ideas here. RoundUp in the cantelope in large amounts perhaps?
I mentioned I once visited my parents and my dad says there's a sick bird on the ground in the yard and he wondered to me if it might be "west nile virus", As I don't watch tv or read estab publications, I never heard of west nile virus, so I asked him the obvious, did he have his lawn sprayed recently with chemicals, and he says yeah, they were just here. Estab induced germ phobia vs suppressed real world threats. The bird was probably poisoned by eating poisoned bugs or plants,
Monsanto thinks they're not responsible for the cantaloupe problems (and a few others regarding food) and they also think they're not responsible for the mass die-offs of large populations of birds in the past few years.
I think they're totally responsible for all of it. Even if I had proof, I wouldn't be allowed to prove it though.
There's your sign . . .
It'd be interesting to know what percent of the CDC's reported cases of "food borne illness" they attribute to poisoning from pesticides? They probably report zero, right? In the make believe world of establishment propaganda, people can't get sick from eating Big Ag poisons.
I recall another "west nile virus" incident. I was camping with a group of about 25, for the weekend, a nice natural setting, I've always had amazing experiences on these campouts we used to do, so anyway Friday night just when we were getting together, a girl came with her mother, who dropped her off... anyway like an hour later I see her mother's car return and the girl is heading toward it so I asked where's she going, and she said, 'oh my mom doesn't want me to stay here too long, because of the mosquitos, you know, there might be west nile virus..."
Give me a break! So the girl probably spent the weekend being driven around in a car risking her life at every turn, when she could have been sitting under the stars, the healing effect of the bonfire, learning and sharing with real people, all that good Natural energy of the trees and birds...
ok one more: so I'm talking to this woman at the grocery store, she says with that storm we just had, she almost put her daughter in the car to drive (30 miles) to Gainesville to get a motel, because she lives in a cheap trailer and could have been killed by a tornado... So I pointed out to her the drive in the car is actually probably much more dangerous than the wind. In my parents house I've sometimes heard the tv beeping and beeping with " a severe weather warning..." ... all this commotion, my mom's ready to hide under the table in case a tornado comes... So even though Illinois' in a tornado alley, the numbers I found were 4, that's 4 people killed a year by tornadoes, but 1400 killed in Illinois by cars. Do you hear warning beepers going off on tvs to alert you to the danger of getting in a car? My mom will get in a car and drive 60 miles round trip to drop off a three dollar bowl of soup to my brother, without batting an eye. The power of the brainwashing.
It'd be interesting to know what percent of the CDC's reported cases of "food borne illness" they attribute to poisoning from pesticides? They probably report zero, right? In the make believe world of establishment propaganda, people can't get sick from eating Big Ag poisons.
I recall another "west nile virus" incident. I was camping with a group of about 25, for the weekend, a nice natural setting, I've always had amazing experiences on these campouts we used to do, so anyway Friday night just when we were getting together, a girl came with her mother, who dropped her off... anyway like an hour later I see her mother's car return and the girl is heading toward it so I asked where's she going, and she said, 'oh my mom doesn't want me to stay here too long, because of the mosquitos, you know, there might be west nile virus..."
Give me a break! So the girl probably spent the weekend being driven around in a car risking her life at every turn, when she could have been sitting under the stars, the healing effect of the bonfire, learning and sharing with real people, all that good Natural energy of the trees and birds...
ok one more: so I'm talking to this woman at the grocery store, she says with that storm we just had, she almost put her daughter in the car to drive (30 miles) to Gainesville to get a motel, because she lives in a cheap trailer and could have been killed by a tornado... So I pointed out to her the drive in the car is actually probably much more dangerous than the wind. In my parents house I've sometimes heard the tv beeping and beeping with " a severe weather warning..." ... all this commotion, my mom's ready to hide under the table in case a tornado comes... So even though Illinois' in a tornado alley, the numbers I found were 4, that's 4 people killed a year by tornadoes, but 1400 killed in Illinois by cars. Do you hear warning beepers going off on tvs to alert you to the danger of getting in a car? My mom will get in a car and drive 60 miles round trip to drop off a three dollar bowl of soup to my brother, without batting an eye. The power of the brainwashing.
I would consider the following poisons. People really have no idea what is in or on their foods. The more I learn, the less I will buy from stores. I feel safer consuming meats from the local guy who slaughters his/her own meats, and the farmer who grows their own produce, and the farmer who milks their own animals. It isn't hard to see why bees are disappearing, birds dying in droves, people with chronic debilitating diseases, etc etc.
If any cases are linked with pesticides, you can be sure it'll be buried so deep it'll take many years to find.
http://www.safefoods.net/cecure/index.htm
Cantaloupe update: ok digging a little deeper I find the cantaloupe story went to 33 people allegedly killed by listeria on cantaloupes. Looks like the govt blamed it on food handling equipment that wasn't properly "sanitized", etc. So listeria got on the cantaloupes supposedly and grew and spread and got on the hands or in the mouths of cantaloupe eaters and spread within their bodies and killed them...
Ok, how about a different interpretation of events? Cantaloupes are filled with water. The cantaloupe plant pulls water out of the soil and into the cantaloupe. When Big Ag pesticides and herbicides are also in the soil, these poisons also get pulled into the cantaloupe. Someone eats the cantaloupe, and gets poisoned. These poisons wreck havoc in their system, killing off microbes that naturally live in the body, but some microbes are able to withstand the poison, microbes such as listeria, and so they proliferate in the body. If enough Big Ag poisons are in the cantaloupe, the person dies. The govt can't blame the death on Big Ag poisoning, that would be berry berry bad for business. So they blame it on the listeria, which, according to Miguel, lives in our bodies naturally.
Ok folks so remember to always wash your hands thoroughly and the outside of the cantaloupe before eating the Big Ag poisons inside it, I guess that's the govt's message for us.
Just out of curiousity I looked up what kind of pesticides are used on cantaloupes, and the most common one I found was metam sodium. Here's a little article talking about a metam sodium spill in a river in California that killed 200 000 fish, and 300 people got sick just from the fumes... The Coast Gurard says it becomes poisonous when mixed with water... Fda has studies linking it to birth defect in animals...
While the govt was swabbing the food processing equipment looking for microbes, did anyone bother to look inside the cantaloupes for Big Ag poisons? Bon apetite folks.
http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/reaction/a_toxic_nightmare.html
True foodborne illness.
Hi tommculhane,
I hesitate to go off the topic, but just a thought about your belief regarding the causes of AIDS, syphilis, etc. True, sex has been practiced (and even learned!) for a few years now, but many of these activities are not in accord with nature. As my Momma told me "There's a place for everything", and most people seem to be disregarding that when it comes to their bodies. Most importantly, when these acts take place with virtual strangers, how can you possibly know what organisms are being swapped?
Of course, I'm positive that no conventional treatment for these diseases is really beneficial; on the contrary, they probably are damaging. As always, it's all about money.
As with everything else, we need to be responsible and look after our health, and that of our kids.I think some theories can be dangerously misleading.
Please understand, I'm not condemning people for their desires. I'm merely saying that they aren't working with nature, and we're seeing in many realms that there's a price for that.
I think the root of this problem, Mama, is that we no longer live in small gather-hunter tribes. Our system of lineage, since the rise of agriculture, has been patriarchal, not matriarchal.
Mass civilization has changed things. Some for better and some for worse. But there's no going back. Its a pandora's box... might as well accept it.
Hey Bill,
The current "society" is unsustainable, as far as I can tell. I believe it will eventually revert to community/tribal life. The modern way of life is totally dependent on fossil fuels, and as those deplete we will have to return to a more "primitive" way of life.
I promise to stay on topic as much as possible from now on.
Happy cheesemaking!
Mama,transporting food by air is the only thing totally dependent on fossil fuels. I agree the world will look allot deferent but I'm not so sure it will effect society as much as people think.
Mike,
It's my understanding that industrial ag in general depends on high fossil fuel consumption. The entire consumerist society is a house of cards, built on cheap energy. From what I read and hear, that energy is still provided mainly by fossil fuels which are not limitless. When an inefficient, wasteful process like hydrofracking is being promoted so vigorously, my sense is that the party is coming to an end.
We experienced a sort of preview of this when our region was hit by Hurricane Sandy. Without the distractions of all the techno toys and TV, people walked along our road (usually dangerous, but few cars during the gas shortage) and talked to each other. Neighbors offered help. People went to bed early. Those of us in houses without woodstoves realized anew how stupidly short-sighted it is to depend on central heating.
A similar preview took place last year, right around the same time (weird!).
The world without cheap fossil fuels will force us to depend on each other, and I think that's a bright silver lining!
Synthetic fertilizer? Pesticides? Herbicides? The machinery? The CAFO, ethanol (unsustainable in itself), and processing forced markets for industrial corn and soy? The whole industrial storage system? The whole transportation system? The whole retailing system? The military machine to force it all on the world? All 100% dependent on fossil fuels.
(Meanwhile, if you believe these aren't so dependent, then why wouldn't you also believe the lies about converting air transport to ethanol fuel?)
very well said Mama.
Ken
"I'm not condemning people for their desires. I'm merely saying that they aren't working with nature, and we're seeing in many realms that there's a price for that." Mama
Mama you're being tricked by establishment disinformation. You've probably never heard of bonobos. Most Americans haven't. They are one of the great apes, and our closest relatives bodywise. The reason you didn't learn about them in school, or see them on animal shows on tv, is because bonobos spend most of the day having sex, it's their favorite pastime. They have all kinds of sex, male male, female female, ... the gals like to rub their genitals together with each other, they do it so much scientists have a name for it, gg rubbing...
Our closest relatives brainwise are "the humans of the sea", bottlenose dolphins. Their brains are larger than ours. Like bonobos, their favorite pastime is sex, and they have all kinds. If you swim with them and they like you, be ready, because they will approach you with sexual advances. This is how the Creator has designed things. Look into btw, homosexuality in Nature, and you will see it is very very common, particularly with grazing animals like zebra, giraffe, bighorn sheep, etc etc. You can find videos on youtube if you look...
But you and most people don't know these basic facts of life because the establishment is a complete scam and has hidden this from you. As one scientist says in a video, for years they have said that homosexuality with animals is due to the "stress of captivity" but this is a complete lie. They say the same thing with dolphins, bonobos, etc etc, but out in Nature you will see they are lying.
So all the "Christians" out there who hate gays for being unnatural, now you can stop hating them. Ok? Living in harmony with Nature is a good thing, not a a bad thing.
Hi tommculhane,
I'm very sorry I upset you so much. That was not my intention. It is none of my business what people do sexually ("as long as they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses", as Mrs. Patrick Campbell said). But I'm merely stating that the various parts of the body are designed for particular functions. Mouth for eating, rear end for defecating, genitals for for urinating and reproducing (weird, to combine the two, but that's ingenuity). That's the design; what you decide to do with that is entirely your affair. But if you try to put them in unexpected places, you're going against that design, so it makes sense that unexpected results will occur.
I don't know enough about the animal behavior, but I've been jumped by a boar (goat) in the past. If I subscribe to your theory wildly enough, should I have behaved like a ewe? This goat didn't have a gal in his life, so I figure that's why he did it. But I'm sure he would have preferred a goat girlfriend.
I'm not going to bother protesting I don't "hate gays for being unnatural", because you're obviously really upset, and I'm sure if you knew me you would not say that. Besides, aren't most heterosexuals doing the same practices? I'd have to hate everybody :)
BTW, I don't really know if I am a Christian. I know I believe in a Creator, whom I feel most comfortable addressing as God. That's the only certainty I have, plus a faith that He cares about us. I also suspect the Creator may appear differently to people, and I'm at peace with that.
Thanks for the Sex Ed :)
"I'm very sorry I upset you so much"
You didn't upset me at all. I hear the views you express all the time, they are what people today commonly believe. I took time to give the readers the truth because some may be interested.
"... the various parts of the body are designed for particular functions... if you try to put them in unexpected places, you are going against that design..."
Mama I know that's what they teach in establishment schools and tv, but if you were to check out what I've posted here, you'll see the Creator has designed bodies to be used much more creatively than you think. Last I checked there was a youtube video showing male big horn sheep in the wild having anal sex. No it wasn't from the "stress of captivity" or because female bighorn sheep don't exist in the wild.
There are a variety of reasons why the establishment lies and suppresses basic facts of Nature. Btw bottlenose dolphins in the wild have been observed where the male was using his penis having sex with the breathing hole of another dolphin, giving the term "blowhole" an added nuance today. (Sorry if I'm 'offending" anyone talking about reality here).
I wouldn't do things that I felt were harming my body, but I am ever ready to use the physical gear for that which it is intended, ie HAPPINESS. I believe in the seed idea, where the pattern of the whole Creation is within our system. So there is no better use for the human body than to generate healing energy and pleasure (use the politically correct word 'joy" if pleasure bothers you) with sex.
Hi tom,
Okay, now that Mr. Gumpert's blog is going totally bizarre...May I point out that animals also commit incest regularly? And that males often jump on females who don't look overly enthusiastic about it? And that animals often display domination in a sexual manner? And that humans mating the boring ole fashioned way come together in an embrace, which I think is remarkably symbolic?
I apologize to Mr. Gumpert for this surreal comment thread :0
I feel as though I've inadvertently turned into a troll! I think we've exhausted the topic as well as the rest of the commenters.
Have fun, tom;-)
You know, I have been tempted to munch on my babies when they're really cute. Could that be some weird animal instinct? Don't they sometimes eat their young...
Bonobos also embrace when they have face to face sex, and it's quite moving to researchers. They are known for how peaceful they are. Mothers take very good care of baby bonobos.
According to Dr John Lilly, who studied dolphins for many years, their ethical standards in the wild are superior to modern humans. They don't murder, they have a long history of very noble actions toward humans even in the face of extreme provocation. A woman once told me how her mother was saved when caught in an undertow out in the ocean swimming, a group of dolphins came to her aid. Perhaps your species isn't as isolated from the web of life as you think.
"Most importantly, when these acts take place with virtual strangers, how can you possibly know what organisms are being swapped?"
Believe it or not Momma, that's none of your concern, as there is already a design to Nature and it's not your job to redesign our species. We have immune systems. Our species is made for touching. It's actually the best thing for our health. Various people here have pointed out that "organisms being swapped" actually promotes health. I guess you could tell your theories to the bottlenose dolphins that travel long distances in the oceans to visit new groups for lovemaking, tell them they are being irresponsible, and see what they say,
I should add, people become suseptible to infections, etc., when they have severe mineral vitamin deficiencies, such as with the standard american diet. Weston Price's research shows for example, that even though tuberculosis was very common at the time he traveled the world (1930s), people that ate their traditional whole food diets were immune to it. Establishment slop foods, that don't exist in nature, like pasteurized milk, refined sugar, etc., set the stage for these infections.
The second reason a lot of 'modern" people have problems with touching others (stds), is due to the power of the mind. What you believe can have a tremendous effect on the functioning of your system for good or ill. That's why 'double blind" studies are sometimes used, to allow for "the placebo effect". This is also the basis of "psychosomatic illness". In other words, what is the effect on the functioning of your immune system, in the genital region of your body, when your whole life the establishment has been forcing you to cover your body because they teach it is "obscene", that sex is "dirty", that words in the language that refer to sex are "bad words", that God punishes you for having sexual desire, that touching others is really really "high risk behavior', and on and on? You might not know about the power of the unconscious mind, but the establishment surely does. Obviously all the anti sex anti nature programming is having an extremely harmful effect of many people's systems: pain in childbirth, stds, breast and prostate cancers, radical periods, low sex drive...) These things don't exist in Nature in any significance.
I do plan to read your comments in more depth, tom, but right now I must run. I just wanted to say that despite my unnatural views of sex ;-) my children's birthpains were very uncomfortable, but rather glorious (short labors!), and definitely not enough to discourage this "Mama" from having babies. I'm not done yet, God willing.
I forgot to mention antibiotic use. Much has been posted in this forum about the importance of the intestinal flora, the health of the gut. People here have pointed out antibiotics are prescibed today like candy. When the bacteria environment in your colon has been radically altered from antibiotics, this can set the stage for disease, particularly for gays.
Mama, what's the price for killing children with a deadly treatment for a made up disease.
Hi Mike,
I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which disease you're referring to?
Mama, which disease were you referring to when you said "I think some theories can be dangerously misleading. Please understand, I'm not condemning people for their desires. I'm merely saying that they aren't working with nature, and we're seeing in many realms that there's a price for that."?
rawmilkmike - I think Mama was not referring to any particular disease...her statements were regarding to sexual behaviours that tomm was talking about.
Deb, Mama said "I hesitate to go off the topic, but just a thought about your belief regarding the causes of AIDS, syphilis,". Her comment seemed to apply to aids. I think I recently mentioned I was an AIDS denialist.
Yes Deb, that is correct. And I also believe that our unnatural way of life encourages all kinds of "different" behaviors, which then cause problems of which the corporate system takes advantage. Notice that the corporations always make money off these situations?
Anyway, I think we all have very firm opinions on this, and none of us are going to budge. So now I need to get real, and read all those great comments about pathogens, and legal mumbo jumbo, for which I'll need my thinking cap.
tom, I always find your comments interesting, even when they're not sexy :).
"no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..." Since no one is saying "Plaintiffs do not have a right to consume the foods of their choice..." the judge must be saying "Plaintiffs do not have a right to produce the foods of their choice..." Wouldn't that simple mean that is the consumers choice.
The FDA did say exactly that, and also said that it thinks crossing state lines to procure milk for one's personal consumption is a crime, though it doesn't intend to try to enforce the law against it. Several judges have agreed.
As for consumer choice vs. full Food Freedom, the former is a paltry notion which is doomed to fail anyway. "You can choose any food you want as long as it's processed from GMOs." The only goal worthy of self-respecting human beings, and the only goal that can work, is full non-corporate direct retail prodcuer freedom, and beyond that completely abolishing the divide between "producer" and "consumer". In the end we have to provide our own food, as integral food-producing local/regional communities. Nothing else can work: politically, since the corporate/government system is totalitarian in intent and goal; physically, since industrial ag is unsustainable and shall soon collapse.
Yes, I bought a generator for Y2K but I'm not holding my breath for the collapse of industrial ag.
Never heard of dependency on finite fossil fuels, dependency on finite industrial-quantity phosphorus, dependency on finite fossil aquifers (without the ever-more depleted Ogalalla Aquifer to moisten the soil, great plains ag would've become impossible long ago), soil exhaustion, endemic crop exhaustion (e.g., Roundup Ready crops are not protected from glyphosate's nutrition chelating effect, but just strung along in a severely weakened state; there have already been instances of sudden death syndrome of whole crops, e.g. among RR soy)? Any of these, and probably others, can be, and eventually will be, the proximate cause for the end of industrial ag.
Thanks Russ, I hadn't heard this (e.g., Roundup Ready crops are not protected from glyphosate's nutrition chelating effect, but just strung along in a severely weakened state; there have already been instances of sudden death syndrome of whole crops, e.g. among RR soy).
Beyond the intrinsic physical weakness of GMOs and F1 hybrids, all monocultures are by their nature far more vulnerable to pests and disease. In organic horticulture, while individual plants may sometimes be attacked, epidemics are rare.
The Irish potato famine is just the most famous example of the phenomenon which becomes more likely with every passing year, inherent to monoculture itself. Soil exhaustion, and that it's often GMO monocropping, increases the likelihood.
Russ, "The FDA did say exactly" what? I don't no of any state where it is illegal to drink raw milk.
From the FDA's brief in the FTCLDF case.
a. There is No Absolute Right to Consume or Feed Children Any
Particular Food. (p.25)
...plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish. (p. 26-7)
http://attempter.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/corporate-food-tyranny-2-of-2/
In response to questioning during the case, the FDA issued this opinion on individual eaters* crossing state lines to get milk.
"The regulation under challenge provides, in part, “no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized or is made from dairy ingredients (milk or milk products) that have all been pasteurized….”
In its March 16 response to the judge’s questions, FDA took the position that “a person who purchases unpasteurized milk in one state with the intent to take it to another state (either for personal use or to distribute to others) is engaging in interstate commerce.” As for consumers who cross state lines intending to take raw milk back home for personal use, FDA stated that it “has never sought to bring an enforcement action against a person because he or she crossed a state boundary to purchase and return with raw milk solely for his or her own use, and FDA has no present intent to bring an action against such a person in the future. Nevertheless…the hypothetical interstate traveler in this example would have ‘caused’ raw milk ‘to be delivered into interstate commerce’ in violation of 21 C.F.R. §1240.61.”
What FDA is trying to accomplish with this answer is to let raw milk consumers know they are violating the law (by carrying raw milk across state lines for their personal consumption)"
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/fda-now-sees-raw-milk-consumer...
As today's post here pointed out, the only reason the FDA hasn't tried to extend a central ban to intrastate milk commerce is that they fear they'd provoke too much of a backlash. (But among the people, not in the courts. The system certainly doesn't fear the courts, usually gets the decisions it wants, and defies the important contrary decisions, as in the USDA's flouting of the 2010 court-ordered moratorium on GM sugarbeets.)
The basic point in all this is the totalitarian (using that term as simple, common sense denotation: the FDA, like any government or corporate bureaucracy, sees literally no limits to its potential power and domination) vector of the food police. I defy anyone to name the failsafe which would cause the FDA to take a "different" attitude toward intrastate commerce, or buying for personal consumption, or milking one's own cow and drinking the milk, than it takes toward interstate commerce. (Meanwhile it pressures and cajoles state governments to be as condemnatory as possible within the state.) On the contrary, by its very nature it regards all these as within its potential purview, recognizing only the limits of where the people might finally stop retreating, turn around, and fight.
* I reject the term "consumer" in our movement context, but it's hard to find a substitute. Petrini's "co-producer" isn't bad, but we need something simpler. Maybe "eater", or just "citizen", is fine.
I know all that Russ. I was just saying it's not illegal to "drink" raw milk and the Judge didn't say we don't have the fundamental right to "consume" the foods of our choice.
Hi Russ,
I think your comment makes a lot of sense. I remember contemplating during my milk pickup one day, that technically I was committing a "crime", as I crossed that invisible line where my farm fresh milk suddenly mutated into a toxic substance.
It ought to make us think more about the real "nature" of those invisible lines.
WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION
As amended through April 2011
Article IV.
Legislative
Enactment of laws. Section 17. [As amended April 1977] (1) The style of all laws of the state
shall be “The people of the state of Wisconsin, represented in senate and assembly, do enact as
follows:”.
I believe our current raw milk prohibition could be ended with one consumer call to Pick N Save asking for raw milk(like a Rosa Parks) and a good law firm to take the case.
[quote from article]: " . . . this decision was based on FDA’s judgment about the appropriate exercise of federal authority vis-a-vis state authority. Translation: We would have loved to have banned raw milk nationally, but we didn’t think we could get away with it in court challenges." [end of quote]
FDA's judgment?
I wonder what makes anyone think the FDA doesn't have the authority to completely ban raw milk nationally? They do.
Someone be kind enough to tell me why they don't completely ban raw milk in the USA.
Because they fear that it might, for now, be over-reaching and provoke too much of a grassroots resistance. That's one of the things which could possibly be the catalyst for a real Food Freedom movement. I'd love to see them try.
The FDA makes enough money and earns its corporate stripes approving drugs. Why are they even subjecting themselves to this raw milk fight? I really doubt that the FDA is afraid of the court system or afraid of over-reaching. Grassroots resistance groups stand no chance of winning this argument over raw milk or any food freedom movement and those of us who are part of it know that. Really. So WHY doesn't the FDA just assert their authority and ban raw milk and whatever other foods they have been targeting?
I'm sorry to hear that in your mind you're already beaten. (Why do you say you're part of a "movement" you're sure can't win? By your own testimony you're not part of it.) Thankfully, throughout history there have always been people who were sure they can and will win. I'm one of them.
I repeat that the only real thing restraining the FDA, or any other government or corporate bureaucracy, is that their strategy is to move carefully and not provoke too much alarm at once. Why do you think the system still holds (fake) elections? It's sure not out of any belief in "democracy".
You think it's an accident that they're focusing on destroying small farmers but try to avoid too much direct targeting of customers? A coincidence that in the face of the political defiance of the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, they reiterated their (false) assurance that they wouldn't target customers? No, it's because they think they can quash raw milk by driving out the producers, and in that way cause the consumers to cease to exist. They think if they just continue indirectly subjugating the citizenry by systematically removing their real choices (as opposed to their fake "consumerist" ones), the citizenry will remain passive until it's too late. As Monsanto said of its own strategy, they wanted to remove options until "you wake up one day and it's everywhere, and you just sort of surrender." The FDA and Big Ag have been trying that out with raw milk as the template for the far more difficult, far more important goal of quashing the local produce movement.
That's why the FDA doesn't directly ban it. Strategy and tactics, and nothing else. As for why the FDA's taking the lead here at all, as opposed to the USDA, I don't know the answer to that offhand. I just added it to my research list. But certainly both the USDA and the FDA are gearing up for the general assault on Community Food.
I have to agree with that Russ.
@ Russ: I'm a person who believes we (all people) should have the right to consume whatever we wish. If that doesn't make me part of a movement, fine. But to recap, so far we have no new freedoms regarding food and the gubment agencies who are *in control* are in the process of taking away more of the freedoms we do have for the moment. We have people in jail, we have people in court, we have people going broke, we have animals destroyed, we have foodstuffs destroyed, we have people whose front yard gardens caused them to have criminal records now - all in the name of freedoms we still don't have. You can call it whatever you like.
It doesn't matter if we remain passive or not, we're just not going to win against the tyrannical gubment agencies. That's my opinion. It's gone way past that because all of these agencies have been given too much power. And you know what they say about power. I'll keep fighting in my own way, but in the long run, it's a dismal situation. There are not enough people in the citizenry who are interested in real food because they're so brainwashed by the processed food industry. I mean, really - they actually believe Cheerios are good for them. We can convert a few here and a few there, but in comparison to the devil we're fighting there's just not enough who really give two tweets.
Our rights are eroding so fast it will be a miracle if we aren't all in chains by the end of the year. The monsanto doods are right - they sneaked up on us in the middle of the night and now it's a bit late to change things. But for those of us who want real food products, the nightmare is only beginning.
That's perhaps the best example one can give of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Thank god there's so many who believe the opposite.
I'd love to believe the opposite of what I said is true.
What's "self-fulfilling" about it?? This doesn't concern just me, you know, and the problem you seem to be missing is that there aren't "so many".
Heck, I couldn't even get anyone here to answer my question about who really has the authority to entirely ban the sale of raw milk. Have you actually taken the time to look at how many levels of bureaucratic huckumpuckey one would need to deal with in order to try to get some of these things changed? Why, just the "committee" branches alone are enough to make one's head swirl. I've tried skipping all that and talking directly to my CONgresspeople. You know what happens? After initial contact with their offices (never get to actually speak to these people in the flesh) about six weeks goes by and I get a "form" letter telling me that raw milk is dangerous and how pasteurization has saved the world. Seriously. Other than a few good souls, the people up on the Hill are so far from reality it would be impossible to get them to listen to anything. And even then, you get maybe one or two of them to listen (apparently Rand Paul and a couple of others are in support of legalizing raw milk in all states) and they introduce a bill that gets immediately tabled or defeated and no one hears another word for years, if at all, and the whole thing moves to another dimension in the twilight zone of the fda filing system. Most of it ends up in file 13.
I'll take my raw milk as long as I can get it, but I have no false hopes that any progress will be made in regard to its legality. When we can buy it anywhere, anytime - then I'll believe it.
I never said I believe in "legalizing" it (meaning full decriminalization; some kind of phony corporatized legalization regime is possible) by going through system channels. I think that's impossible, as well as unworthy of us as human beings. If that's all you're talking about when you say nothing can be done, then I misunderstood you.
I believe in organizing and acting to take our rights, our sovereignty, and our freedom directly. (Ironically, this is the one and only thing which has ever caused the system to "legally" grant reforms, under duress.)
Russ, I think D is merely saying she aint gonna slit her wrists if raw milk isn't decriminalized.
"It is not necessary to have hope to undertake. It is not necessary to have success to persevere."
William of Orange
Exactly.
D, could you explain what you mean "Heck, I couldn't even get anyone here to answer my question about who really has the authority to entirely ban the sale of raw milk. " It seems we must be talking about two different things.
@ rawmilkmike: WHAT two different things? Who does have the authority to actually ban raw milk. The sale of it, the drinking of it - - - who has that authority? The FDA claims it doesn't, but it threatens to do just that. So does the FDA have the authority to do it but only with the say-so from CONgress?
I've read in several spots here where people quote articles which say "the FDA says it won't challenge the drinking and use of raw milk . . . " yada yada. What?? Did they not say they'll make it "illegal" to transport raw milk and if that's true, how do those people in states where it's already illegal actually procure raw milk?
I think it's called fuzzy reasoning, which is why any attempts of grassroots organizations to "do something" about "legalizing" raw milk are going to go nowhere. Nothing about the current *rules and regs* makes any sense so there's nothing for the grassroots people to get their teeth into. I read something somewhere that says "this is what's actually in the written law or on the books" only to do a little more looking and find something which totally contradicts it. The fda is slippery for a reason. You can't skin what you can't catch.
D, why do you keep insisting that someone has the authority to ban raw milk?
...
I believe any interpretation and implementation of a U.S. State or federal law or regulation that interferes with a consumer getting a food of there choice goes against the spirit an intent of that law or regulation and can be easily challenged in court.
...
I believe it's these interpretations we must fight. What do you think?
rawmilkmike - where in any of D. Smith's posts does she insist "that someone has the authority to ban raw milk"? I see a couple of quotes that she included, but those were someone else's words. It is very obvious that "someone" (unknown as who that someone is) is trying desperately trying to do so, otherwise how do you explain all the producers/providers of raw milk & raw milk products that have been shutdown in many states nation wide? You can't fight interpretations, at least not in a court of law. The courts do not recognize nor acknowledge that others may interpret the laws, statues, provisions, etc much differently than the way the courts interpret them. Sure it is not fair, but I think history has shown that it is not always fair in a court of law. This is why many people are educating themselves about jury nullification. You'd be surprised at the small percentage of people who serve on a jury have no clue about jury nullification, as well as, their chance to make a difference.
It's the states interpretation that's at question not the courts.
...
WIruling-Craig-Zinniker.pdf page 21
"...can be easily challenged in court. I believe it's these interpretations we must fight. What do you think?"
I think plenty have tried to challenge these in court, and they haven't done very well. And we're about to see how badly Vernon Bowman will be routed by Monsanto's supremely corporatist court.
BTW, the spirit and intent of laws, just as much as the wording, is always intentionally vague, precisely so that administration and the police have as much discretionary power as possible. That's also why the courts have generally refused to speculate on the "intent" of legislatures.
I agree Russ but I also see how bad their legal representation is. I can see why a judge may say his hands were tied.
Pages