How is this ruling constitutional? (Raw milk content)

[mommaduck]

Donated breastmilk is pasteurized, regulated, controlled.

Not all...;) There are mothers who donate to friends/family and mothers who wetnurse for friends/family.

[Mrs Mungo]

Not all...;) There are mothers who donate to friends/family and mothers who wetnurse for friends/family.

 

Sure, but then it isn't commerce. That goes with the point about cutting your hair versus setting up shop without a license.

[Caroline]

??? Last I read it I had the right to life, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT of Happiness... The "individual" part of the ruling could hit two of the three.

 

That's actually the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[maddykate]

According to the ruling, the farmers can't drink the milk from their own cows, either. I'm not sure what the laws are surrounding that - were they never allowed to drink it in the first place if they own a dairy farm? I think I'll have to do some digging. But if there was never a stipulation like this for dairy farmers on the books, then it would seem as though no resident should be able to drink their own cow's milk, too.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I am not reading you right, but are you saying that you think that the farmer/resident should not be able to drink the milk the cow that they personally own?

 

If that is not what you are saying, I apologize for misunderstanding. If you are saying that you believe the farmer or the resident who owns the cow should not be allowed to drink the milk provided by said cow, you are opening up a whole world of regulations on what we can and cannot eat. By that belief, you are saying that when I grow my garden, I cannot eat my produce. If I raise bees, I cannot eat the honey I collect. How does that not interfere with my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of my happiness? I don't think I want to do down this road. It is a scary, scary place to imagine (and we are not far from there, in my opinion).

[LauraGB]

Maybe I am not reading you right, but are you saying that you think that the farmer/resident should not be able to drink the milk the cow that they personally own?

 

Oh, no! Definitely a misunderstanding! I most certainly feel people should be able to drink the milk from their own cow.

 

If that is not what you are saying, I apologize for misunderstanding. If you are saying that you believe the farmer or the resident who owns the cow should not be allowed to drink the milk provided by said cow, you are opening up a whole world of regulations on what we can and cannot eat. By that belief, you are saying that when I grow my garden, I cannot eat my produce. If I raise bees, I cannot eat the honey I collect. How does that not interfere with my right to life, liberty, and pursuit of my happiness? I don't think I want to do down this road. It is a scary, scary place to imagine (and we are not far from there, in my opinion).

 

And that is exactly the problem with this ruling!

 

ETA - Those farmers can legally make and consume their own beer, wine, dry their own tobacco and smoke it...but they can't drink the milk from their cows. How this is even remotely reasonable is absolutely beyond me.

Edited October 7, 2011 by LauraGB

[Bluegoat]

Sure, but then it isn't commerce. That goes with the point about cutting your hair versus setting up shop without a license.

 

The issue as I see it is this: large agricultural interests cannot safely provide raw milk. In large commercial milk production, you need pasteurization.

 

The same isn't true in local production. The milk is from a single source and even in cases where there is no regulation, the buyer is able to look at the way the milk is handled. (Alternatively there can be licensing, but either way it is still a directly sold, fast turn-over product.)

 

And in the most ideal scenario for local food, one lives near the farms one buys from, which means the immune system is used to the local pathogens.

 

But most of the actions against these kinds of small agricultural models - be it milk, chickens, eggs, hogs, or seed-saving, are by giant corporate interests.

 

I think that should be really scary to us.

[maddykate]

Oh, no! Definitely a misunderstanding! I most certainly feel people should be able to drink the milk from their own cow.

 

 

 

And that is exactly the problem with this ruling!

 

ETA - Those farmers can legally make and consume their own beer, wine, dry their own tobacco and smoke it...but they can't drink the milk from their cows. How this is even remotely reasonable is absolutely beyond me.

 

 

 

I do apologize for my misunderstanding. I feel so passionately about this topic, yet so helpless. I wish we could educate people about the path where we are headed, but the vast majority of people I know just think the Powers That Be are simply looking out for our best interest and are only enacting these laws to keep us safe.

[Colleen]

(L)arge agricultural interests cannot safely provide raw milk. In large commercial milk production, you need pasteurization.

Far be it from me of all people to defend large ag interests, but in the interest of fairness, I have to point out that this is merely an assumption on your part.

[Mrs Mungo]

The issue as I see it is this: large agricultural interests cannot safely provide raw milk. In large commercial milk production, you need pasteurization.

 

The same isn't true in local production. The milk is from a single source and even in cases where there is no regulation, the buyer is able to look at the way the milk is handled. (Alternatively there can be licensing, but either way it is still a directly sold, fast turn-over product.)

 

I have no problem with raw milk or regulation/licensing to sell raw milk. Colleen could speak to that issue far better than I can. However, people are mixing arguments about individual rights with commerce regulation. These are very different arguments.

 

And in the most ideal scenario for local food, one lives near the farms one buys from, which means the immune system is used to the local pathogens.

 

But most of the actions against these kinds of small agricultural models - be it milk, chickens, eggs, hogs, or seed-saving, are by giant corporate interests.

 

I don't disagree with any of that. I am only disagreeing with the meaning of *this* ruling, and what it means with regard to individual rights.

[maddykate]

The issue as I see it is this: large agricultural interests cannot safely provide raw milk. In large commercial milk production, you need pasteurization.

 

The same isn't true in local production. The milk is from a single source and even in cases where there is no regulation, the buyer is able to look at the way the milk is handled. (Alternatively there can be licensing, but either way it is still a directly sold, fast turn-over product.)

 

And in the most ideal scenario for local food, one lives near the farms one buys from, which means the immune system is used to the local pathogens.

 

But most of the actions against these kinds of small agricultural models - be it milk, chickens, eggs, hogs, or seed-saving, are by giant corporate interests.

 

I think that should be really scary to us.

 

 

 

I agree! Also, why are people not more concerned with the entire process of our commercially produced dairy products? The containment lots where these cows live until their death are deplorable. The only reason pasteurization is needed in the first place is because of those conditions and the fact that cows are being fed products they are not designed to eat. How is that okay? But, as consumers of commercialized milk, we have no say on those practices. We have no say, yet we are forbidden from getting our milk straight from the farmer. It is scary.

[plansrme]

I'm ok with this one too. False advertising I'm not ok with, but if someone wants to become a druggie - or try an experimental treatment - I'm ok with that.

[Whether you agree with the substance of the law or not isn't the question--the question is whether regulating it is Constitutional.]

This affects the rights of others so is not applicable in the same way.

[What right? Where is there a right to not see a tenement next door to me?]

 

 

And the problem is?[it will be illegal in 2014 to go without health insurance.]

 

One can argue this affects the rights of others too. It is argued that way a bit. Are you saying the courts should outlaw it???[Nope, but I would not argue, and to my knowledge even the HSLDA does't argue, that regulating it is is unconstitutional.]

 

This affects the rights of others. (Common decency laws.) Watching someone drink raw milk is no way the same.[What right?]

 

Same feeling as #1. I would allow for laws similar to DUI (which affects the safety of others).

This REALLY affects others (stress factor if nothing else). Drinking raw milk does nothing like it.

 

This can affect the rights of others due to concerns about whether the business owner is meeting safety and experience levels required.[but consenting adults are free to make their own judgments, JUST like with raw milk consumption. You cannot possibly make this argument about regulating any other business and argue that it is unconstitutional to regulate the cosumption of raw milk.]

 

With full disclosure I'm ok with this and feel it doesn't need regulating in the same manner that, say, engineering would.

 

Where have the courts said you can't cut your own or your family's hair???

 

All traffic laws are meant to try to assist safety - common good.

 

I'm mostly Libertarian. To each our own.

 

See above. ;)

 

First of all, you have confused my commentary on what is with my opinion about what ought to be. My opinion about how things ought to be is irrelevant, as is yours.

 

The scope of the Constitution, as I have noted previously, is actually pretty limited. If a right is not delegated to the federal government or guaranteed therein, the states can regulate it, as per Amendment 10, which reads, in its entirety:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

There is no Constitutional right to drink raw milk, just like there is no Constitutional right to marry your brother or engage in sex with a prostitute or consume illegal drugs or, according to most courts that have addressed this issue, go without health insurance if you want to (which will be illegal as of 2014). Either a power is reserved to the U.S. government, it is enumerated in the Constitution, or it is fair game for State regulation. Whether there is commerce involved or not is relevant only to whether it can be regulated by the federal government--if it is interstate commerce (which is broadly, hugely, mammothly defined by the Supreme Court), the federal government can regulate it. If it is not interstate commerce or not commerce at all, it is still fair game.

 

 

Terri

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree! Also, why are people not more concerned with the entire process of our commercially produced dairy products? The containment lots where these cows live until their death are deplorable. The only reason pasteurization is needed in the first place is because of those conditions and the fact that cows are being fed products they are not designed to eat. How is that okay? But, as consumers of commercialized milk, we have no say on those practices. We have no say, yet we are forbidden from getting our milk straight from the farmer. It is scary.

 

This is not the case with all dairy farms. I am sure Colleen (an actual dairy farmer) could tell you more if you are interested.

[simka2]

Sure, but then it isn't commerce. That goes with the point about cutting your hair versus setting up shop without a license.

 

Mrs Mungo, your post made me think about the Arab Spring and Wallstreet protests. If memory serves the spark that began all of this involved a young man who had to leave college due to family hardship, began selling vegetables from a chart, had chart impounded because he did not have correct permits, tried to get it back and was slapped in the face by a female official and then went and lit himself on fire in protest. :glare:

It is definetly not the same exact situation, but there are echos.

[Mrs Mungo]

First of all, you have confused my commentary on what is with my opinion about what ought to be. My opinion about how things ought to be is irrelevant, as is yours.

 

The scope of the Constitution, as I have noted previously, is actually pretty limited. If a right is not delegated to the federal government or guaranteed therein, the states can regulate it, as per Amendment 10, which reads, in its entirety:

 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

There is no Constitutional right to drink raw milk, just like there is no Constitutional right to marry your brother or engage in sex with a prostitute or consume illegal drugs or, according to most courts that have addressed this issue, go without health insurance if you want to (which will be illegal as of 2014). Either a power is reserved to the U.S. government, it is enumerated in the Constitution, or it is fair game for State regulation. Whether there is commerce involved or not is relevant only to whether it can be regulated by the federal government--if it is interstate commerce (which is broadly, hugely, mammothly defined by the Supreme Court), the federal government can regulate it. If it is not interstate commerce or not commerce at all, it is still fair game.

 

 

Terri

 

This is not entirely true, you might want to look at the ninth amendment.

[plansrme]

Sure, but then it isn't commerce. That goes with the point about cutting your hair versus setting up shop without a license.

 

Whether there is commerce involved or not is relevant only to determining whether the federal government can regulate something. Matters of interstate commerce, and only interstate commerce (though practically, the Supreme Court has said that all commerce is interstate commerce), are delegated to the federal government. The regulation of all other commerce, and all non-commerce, unless it involves a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution (the free exercise of religion, for example) or delegated to the federal government (the making of international treaties comes to mind), is reserved to the states. It is my understanding that this is a state regulation we are dealing with here.

 

Terri

[creekland]

That's actually the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

Exactly! ;)

 

I'm a [mostly] Libertarian who would "declare" my independence from the Gov't where the Gov't oversteps their bounds - hence - why I would not feel bound by any ruling like this even if it were from the Supreme Court. That was my point, but I realize with the multitudes of posts that any one particular poster is difficult to track across the pages. :tongue_smilie:

[creekland]

My opinion about how things ought to be is irrelevant, as is yours.

 

Terri

 

Actually no, to me, it is not. If a law is reasonable by "my" standards, then I will support it. Any law that protects the rights of others I will support too (traffic laws, discrimination laws or whatever). Any law made by a volunteer common group of people wanting to keep their area a certain way is ok with me (think Homeowners Associations). Setting up areas where common decency is expected (no nudity, no cursing) is ok with me as long as there are other areas where people who disagree can go (and there almost always is).

 

Gov't overstepping their bounds for no decent reason is not ok with me and I will ignore them if I choose to do so. ;)

 

With raw milk, I don't give a hoot. We hardly drink any milk. But I'd never "turn someone in" if they chose differently and I'd vote to support them.

[cottonmama]

That's actually the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

 

Thank you.

 

Another correction -- the tenth amendment reads,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

This issue is being regulated by the state, not the federal government. No violation of the US Constitution.

 

Arguments against this need to be based on the state constitution, or on principle. And I think an argument on principle is reasonable here. I don't care what ANY Constitution says: if I don't have the right to own and use a dairy cow, then THE CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE FIXED TO GIVE ME THAT RIGHT.

 

Sorry for yelling. :D

 

Incidentally, I see a huge difference between right and entitlement here. I'm not entitled to have a dairy cow... e.g. if I don't have enough land, I can't complain about not being able to keep a cow. But I should have the right to purchase land and a cow with my own money, and use the cow for feeding myself and my family, at the very least.

[Mrs Mungo]

Whether there is commerce involved or not is relevant only to determining whether the federal government can regulate something.

 

Did I say federal somewhere? I was speaking of government on all levels.

 

Matters of interstate commerce, and only interstate commerce (though practically, the Supreme Court has said that all commerce is interstate commerce), are delegated to the federal government. The regulation of all other commerce, and all non-commerce, unless it involves a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution (the free exercise of religion, for example) or delegated to the federal government (the making of international treaties comes to mind), is reserved to the states. It is my understanding that this is a state regulation we are dealing with here.

 

Terri

 

First, you are a little wrong on what governments can regulate, there are limits, even when a right is not enumerated by the constitution. The ninth amendment deals with this. Those enumerated by the constitution were sined out because the founding fathers considered them important.

 

Second, it sounds like you are disagreeing with me, but I don't see how anything you said refutes anything I said.

[LauraGB]

I do apologize for my misunderstanding. I feel so passionately about this topic, yet so helpless. I wish we could educate people about the path where we are headed, but the vast majority of people I know just think the Powers That Be are simply looking out for our best interest and are only enacting these laws to keep us safe.

 

No worries :).

 

It's a touchy one for me, too.

 

The FDA has some serious competency issues - I don't think that anyone would deny that. But when the state allows them to step in and start meddling with individual property rights, it's even more concerning.

 

WI is a dairy state - much of our money comes from and is poured into the dairy industry. The organic dairy farmers (large and small scale) are kind of pain in the backside for the lobbyists. Even OV has recently had to go from "pasturized" milk products to "ultra pasturized" milk products - ever tried to make butter or cheese with ultra pasturized milk products? It is nearly impossible (to achieve something good, anyway), meaning we have to actually purchase those products now instead of having the ability to make our own.

 

The hand is very far reaching in all of this.

[Caroline]

Exactly! ;)

 

I'm a [mostly] Libertarian who would "declare" my independence from the Gov't where the Gov't oversteps their bounds - hence - why I would not feel bound by any ruling like this even if it were from the Supreme Court. That was my point, but I realize with the multitudes of posts that any one particular poster is difficult to track across the pages. :tongue_smilie:

 

Well, you were replying to someone talking about what rights the Constitution guarantees. You said it guarantees the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You were talking about the Constitution. Go back and read your original post.

[ChristineW]

I just wanted to add that I looked up the plaintiffs online. The whole I can't drink the milk from a cow I own is completely bogus. The plaintiffs set up a coop where persons can pay a $10 fee to join and that grants them the right to shop in the store and PURCHASE the raw milk that the plaintiffs sell to them. They aren't even buying a share of a cow--nobody segregates the milk from "my" cow; the milk can come from any one of 100 cows. The judge should have just exposed the fiction and left personal rights out of it.

 

However, I don't have a "fundamental right" to the food of my own choice. I can't raise chickens in my backyard b/c of housing density. I can't shoot and eat the deer that destroyed my veggie garden and are now attacking my new sages b/c it isn't hunting season. Now matter how yummy it might be, I can't go to Chinatown for shark fin soup or get whale sushi in LA.

[Colleen]

 

Even OV has recently had to go from "pasturized" milk products to "ultra pasturized" milk products...

Mmm, no, you seem to be misunderstanding. OV offers both pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized products and has done so for quite some time. We didn't "have to" do so, but chose to do so in response to market availability and customer demand. (Yes, believe it or not, some people prefer the ultra product.)

 

[Bluegoat]

I have no problem with raw milk or regulation/licensing to sell raw milk. Colleen could speak to that issue far better than I can. However, people are mixing arguments about individual rights with commerce regulation. These are very different arguments.

 

I don't disagree with any of that. I am only disagreeing with the meaning of *this* ruling, and what it means with regard to individual rights.

 

The difficulty is though that big agricultural interests are pursuing these legal actions with a lot of money, and they are pursuing lobbying legislators with a lot of money. They are in most cases the ones who are making these into court cases - the issues don't just bring themselves to court.

 

On the other hand small farmers and local producers can't bring the same resources to bear on these things.

 

Even when individual rulings seem reasonable, or innocuous, you have to wonder about the larger picture. They are not bringing these guys to court just to make sure the food system is safe, or to see some abstract form of justice done. They do it because it is in their economic interest.

[LauraGB]

The whole I can't drink the milk from a cow I own is completely bogus.

 

It's not, though. Not now, anyway. They could before, but the ruling states that they do not have the right to produce and consume their own food.

 

The fee to which you refer is basically independently selling stock in their farm. As stockholders, individuals can obtain the milk from the cows in which they hold the stock. It is the only loophole, to my knowledge, for WI residents to have access to local raw milk. Some farms charge a substantial amount, but some farms charge the smallest amount possible so the consumer doesn't have to go broke getting a gallon of milk.

[Colleen]

I agree! Also, why are people not more concerned with the entire process of our commercially produced dairy products? The containment lots where these cows live until their death are deplorable. The only reason pasteurization is needed in the first place is because of those conditions and the fact that cows are being fed products they are not designed to eat.

As a longtime advocate of and lobbyist for sustainable agriculture practices, I understand and sympathize with you and wish more people shared your concerns. Having said that, let me encourage you not to make sweeping generalizations based on hearsay and propaganda. All commercially-produced dairy products don't come from animals on large-scale containment lots. Pasteurization has nothing whatsoever to do with what a cow is or is not fed.

[LauraGB]

Mmm, no, you seem to be misunderstanding. OV offers both pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized products and has done so for quite some time. We didn't "have to" do so, but chose to do so in response to market availability and customer demand. (Yes, believe it or not, some people prefer the ultra product.)

 

Not in stores in WI (at least in my city). I've looked because OV is the only brand I buy, and recently the regular pasteurized is no longer available here.

 

 

 

ETA 10/9/11 - I take that back - I did find gallons of OV whole milk that were only pasteurized today!

Edited October 9, 2011 by LauraGB

[Mrs Mungo]

I just wanted to add that I looked up the plaintiffs online. The whole I can't drink the milk from a cow I own is completely bogus. The plaintiffs set up a coop where persons can pay a $10 fee to join and that grants them the right to shop in the store and PURCHASE the raw milk that the plaintiffs sell to them. They aren't even buying a share of a cow--nobody segregates the milk from "my" cow; the milk can come from any one of 100 cows. The judge should have just exposed the fiction and left personal rights out of it.

 

However, I don't have a "fundamental right" to the food of my own choice. I can't raise chickens in my backyard b/c of housing density. I can't shoot and eat the deer that destroyed my veggie garden and are now attacking my new sages b/c it isn't hunting season. Now matter how yummy it might be, I can't go to Chinatown for shark fin soup or get whale sushi in LA.

 

It's not, though. Not now, anyway. They could before, but the ruling states that they do not have the right to produce and consume their own food.

 

The fee to which you refer is basically independently selling stock in their farm. As stockholders, individuals can obtain the milk from the cows in which they hold the stock. It is the only loophole, to my knowledge, for WI residents to have access to local raw milk. Some farms charge a substantial amount, but some farms charge the smallest amount possible so the consumer doesn't have to go broke getting a gallon of milk.

 

I don't have the "right" to drive a car, but I am allowed to do so because I have followed the laws and processes in place. Not having a fundamental right to own a cow, milk it, and drink the milk does *not* mean that I am not allowed to do so under certain circumstances. If everyone had a right to own cows, then you could have a cow in a suburban yard.

 

Jus because the judge ruled that the people have his state have no *right* to own a cow or drink its milk, that does *not* mean that people are no longer allowed to do it.

Edited October 8, 2011 by Mrs Mungo

[simka2]

Here's an article from before the judgement. Pretty interesting stuff and sheds some light on why some people would be upset my this venture.

 

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/96261544.html

[Colleen]

Not in stores in WI (at least in my city). I've looked because OV is the only brand I buy, and recently the regular pasteurized is no longer available here.

Yes, it varies from store to store. My own food co-op, for example, only has ultra-pasteurized in half gallons, whereas the co-op in a neighboring county only has pasteurized. It's sometimes a matter of product availability, but consumer and store preferences play a role as well. I merely wanted to point out to you that OV does in fact produce both pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized products, and that our choice to do so is just that: a choice, not a necessary response to any issues raised in this thread. Thank you, btw, for your support of Organic Valley.

[milovany]

Raw milk sales in Washington state are legal but regulated,

Agree (this is what I said above).

 

which is as it should be.

Wholeheartedly disagree.

 

The licensing costs aren't burdensome.

Disagree. The costs/regulations are prohibiting us from selling our extra goat's milk to others. Would love to find out that I'm wrong, but from perusing the documents emailed to me from the state, it looks like we'd need to build a separate building with plumbing. That's burdensome. We're running a clean/safe operation as it is, and if someone would choose to check us out and decide that they agree, then they should be able to purchase our milk.

Edited October 8, 2011 by milovaný

[LauraGB]

Yes, it varies from store to store. My own food co-op, for example, only has ultra-pasteurized in half gallons, whereas the co-op in a neighboring county only has pasteurized. It's sometimes a matter of product availability, but consumer and store preferences play a role as well. I merely wanted to point out to you that OV does in fact produce both pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized products, and that our choice to do so is just that: a choice, not a necessary response to any issues raised in this thread. Thank you, btw, for your support of Organic Valley.

 

:)

 

At least one of the plaintiffs in question are also OV suppliers. I'm concerned about whether or not they have any livelihood left at this point - I don't know if they will be dropped (or maybe already have been).

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Agree (this is what I said above).

 

 

Wholeheartedly disagree.

 

 

Disagree. The costs/regulations are prohibiting us from selling our extra goat's milk to others. Would love to find out that I'm wrong, but from perusing the documents emailed to me from the state, it looks like we'd need to build a separate building with plumbing. That's burdensome. We're running a clean/safe operation as it is, and if someone would choose to check us out and decide that they agree, then they should be able to purchase our milk.

 

:iagree: I think this is one issue where some Americans are not going to settle for "mommy and daddy government know best". ;) This should be very interesting, indeed. My husband and I are members of The Farm To Consumer Legal Defense Fund who lobby for and defend herd shares in particular. Check them out and support them if you can.

[TranquilMind]

A WI judge has ruled that residents of WI "do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume foods of their choice."

 

This ruling has to do with owning a cow and drinking the milk from said cow.

 

From the ruling:

 

 

 

 

What is going on here? I can't honestly think of another country in which the residents can't milk their own cow or goat, eat the eggs from their chickens, etc, and share it with others. How is this ruling even remotely constitutional?

It isn't. But Big Brother is encroaching ever further into our lives while we do nothing.

 

I'm still gobsmacked about the Patriot Act and its invasive effects into our personal lives. It will only get worse.

[Mrs Mungo]

We're running a clean/safe operation as it is, and if someone would choose to check us out and decide that they agree, then they should be able to purchase our milk.

 

Your average consumer would have no idea how to tell if your operation was clean and/or safe. That is why regulations exist.

[TranquilMind]

Even when individual rulings seem reasonable, or innocuous, you have to wonder about the larger picture. They are not bringing these guys to court just to make sure the food system is safe, or to see some abstract form of justice done. They do it because it is in their economic interest.

 

It is always, always, always about the money.

[milovany]

Your average consumer would have no idea how to tell if your operation was clean and/or safe. That is why regulations exist.

 

Why is selling raw milk any different from selling eggs from my chickens or freshly killed and cleaned raw poultry (which I can rightly do without any regulation whatsoever)? From my experience, most people interested in buying raw milk do so for a reason and because of that reason have some basic, if not detailed, understanding of what makes for a safe operation. If not, we can tell them! :001_smile:

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Your average consumer would have no idea how to tell if your operation was clean and/or safe. That is why regulations exist.

 

Checklist for Cow-Shareholders

 

Before you purchase a cow-share, be sure that:

• Cows graze on unsprayed pasture except during the coldest time of the year and are fed hay and silage when in barns.
  

• The herd is tested free of TB and brucellosis.
  

• Teats of cows are cleaned with approved solution before milking.
  

• Cows are milked in a clean barn or milking parlor.
  

• Milk is kept chilled.
  

• Milk is tested regularly to ensure absence of pathogens.
  

Since most cow-shareholders are not farmers, you might benefit from buying the "Raw Milk Production Handbook" by Tim Wightman. It’s an easy and interesting handbook, and can provide you a basis of understanding so the you can have informed discussions with your cow-share operator. We also highly recommend "Safe Handling - Consumers' Guide" by Peggy Beals, RN.

 

http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/cow-shares.html

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

I'm not sure what is going on...but I can't imagine that the ruling will be upheld.

 

:iagree:

[Colleen]

:)

At least one of the plaintiffs in question are also OV suppliers.

Yes. I'm aware of that as OV has an internal position on producers selling raw milk.

[livingnlearning]

Why is selling raw milk any different from selling eggs from my chickens or freshly killed and cleaned raw poultry (which I can rightly do without any regulation whatsoever)? From my experience, most people interested in buying raw milk do so for a reason and because of that reason have some basic, if not detailed, understanding of what makes for a safe operation. If not, we can tell them! :001_smile:

 

Because raw milk is a petri dish. The minute it leaves the cow it is a petri dish for whatever it encounters.

 

We have a family milk cow and I firmly FIRMLY believe that people should be able to buy raw milk if they want it. I think people should be able to drink mud puddle water if they want to and if they do, I should be able to sell it to them. I think the gov't should back the heck out and people should educate themselves. But as much as I love raw milk and we drink it all the time, 24/7, it's nothing to fool with.

[scrapbookbuzz]

That doesn't sound at all Constitutional to me! But I, like some others, am thinking there's more to the story.

[Spy Car]

Yes, it varies from store to store. My own food co-op, for example, only has ultra-pasteurized in half gallons, whereas the co-op in a neighboring county only has pasteurized. It's sometimes a matter of product availability, but consumer and store preferences play a role as well. I merely wanted to point out to you that OV does in fact produce both pasteurized and ultra-pasteurized products, and that our choice to do so is just that: a choice, not a necessary response to any issues raised in this thread. Thank you, btw, for your support of Organic Valley.

 

I don't want to hijack the thread, but does OV have a thoughts about distributing pasteurized but non-homogenized milk?

 

Bill

[maddykate]

As a longtime advocate of and lobbyist for sustainable agriculture practices, I understand and sympathize with you and wish more people shared your concerns. Having said that, let me encourage you not to make sweeping generalizations based on hearsay and propaganda. All commercially-produced dairy products don't come from animals on large-scale containment lots. Pasteurization has nothing whatsoever to do with what a cow is or is not fed.

 

 

I don't wish to debate you on this, as you are much more an expert in this area than I.

 

However, my understanding of the need for pasteurization IS related to the food the cow eats, because cows are not genetically designed to consume grains (corn, soybean, etc.) They are genetically designed to eat grass and only grass. When they do consume grains, their intestinal tracts become imbalanced and the "bad" bacteria has more of a friendly environment in which to grow. In a healthy cow, one who consumes only grass while grazing on open fields (not containment lots) and who is milked in a clean environment (yes, it can be clean) should not have an overgrowth of the bad bacteria to require pasteurization.

 

What reasons aside from what they eat would necessitate pasteurization? I would love to know more.

[Colleen]

I don't want to hijack the thread, but does OV have a thoughts about distributing pasteurized but non-homogenized milk?

 

The vast majority of OV milk is homogenized, as consumers are accustomed to and generally prefer such a product. Here in the Northwest, we do also offer some nonhomogenized whole milk.

[kiana]

I don't wish to debate you on this, as you are much more an expert in this area than I.

 

However, my understanding of the need for pasteurization IS related to the food the cow eats, because cows are not genetically designed to consume grains (corn, soybean, etc.) They are genetically designed to eat grass and only grass. When they do consume grains, their intestinal tracts become imbalanced and the "bad" bacteria has more of a friendly environment in which to grow. In a healthy cow, one who consumes only grass while grazing on open fields (not containment lots) and who is milked in a clean environment (yes, it can be clean) should not have an overgrowth of the bad bacteria to require pasteurization.

 

What reasons aside from what they eat would necessitate pasteurization? I would love to know more.

 

When pasteurization was first brought into use, it was a Godsend. Bovine TB and Brucellosis were widespread, and many people died from TB acquired through milk. These diseases are now rare and most herds are tested free of them.

 

The idea that cows which eat only grass don't get sick isn't true. They do get sick, although less often than cows kept in feedlots.

 

Pasteurization also increases the shelf life dramatically, as it kills the bacteria which could cause spoilage. We do drink raw milk from our own cows, but it goes off far quicker than store milk.

[Spy Car]

The vast majority of OV milk is homogenized, as consumers are accustomed to and generally prefer such a product. Here in the Northwest, we do also offer some nonhomogenized whole milk.

 

I prefer the non-homogenized. What about you?

 

We have one option for organic non-homogenized and it is yummy. I wonder why people prefer (if they really do) to have homogenized milk?

 

Bill

[ChristineW]

That doesn't sound at all Constitutional to me! But I, like some others, am thinking there's more to the story.

 

Ssshh!!! There is...

 

These are two of the plaintiffs. Kinda hard to argue that the state has no compelling interest in regulating the milk you "sell" when at least 30 people get sick from it. So they had to argue "fundamental right."

 

The order was a denial of summary judgment, has no precedence value and applies only to the plaintiffs.

 

Christine

 

BTW, I picked up some OV milk today--its good. we also buy from Strauss. Strauss sells non-homogenized milk and it is yummy. DH and I fight about whether to scoop the cream out and eat it or shake it in the milk. I shake it in b/c otherwise its just fat free milk. Yuck.

[Colleen]

I prefer the non-homogenized. What about you?

I drink 1%, pasteurized, homogenized Organic Valley milk ~ quite in opposition to the six other members of my household who drink 4.5% raw.:D

 

We have one option for organic non-homogenized and it is yummy. I wonder why people prefer (if they really do) to have homogenized milk?

I'm sure in large part it's simply a matter of what they're used to. And some of us dislike any creamy taste/texture in our milk, which goes against the very nature of milk, I realize, but to each his own. Friends of ours up the road have seen phenomenal growth in the bottled, non-homogenized (but pasteurized) side of their dairy over the past few years. There's a resurgence of interest in "cream-on-the-top" milk ~ especially when packaged in good old fashioned milk bottles.:)

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Ssshh!!! There is...

 

These are two of the plaintiffs. Kinda hard to argue that the state has no compelling interest in regulating the milk you "sell" when at least 30 people get sick from it. So they had to argue "fundamental right."

 

The order was a denial of summary judgment, has no precedence value and applies only to the plaintiffs.

 

Christine

 

BTW, I picked up some OV milk today--its good. we also buy from Strauss. Strauss sells non-homogenized milk and it is yummy. DH and I fight about whether to scoop the cream out and eat it or shake it in the milk. I shake it in b/c otherwise its just fat free milk. Yuck.

 

I guess the court should outlaw pasteurized milk too.

 

PASTEURIZED milk has been the source of many widespread outbreaks. A total for some of the documented outbreaks due to PASTEURIZED milk over the past few decades is 239,884 cases and 620 deaths.

 

The nation's largest recorded outbreak of Salmonella was due to PASTEURIZED milk contaminated with antibiotic-resistant Salmonella typhimurium. The outbreak, which occurred between June 1984 and April 1985 sickened over 200,000 and caused 18 deaths. Disturbingly, the CDC did not issue a specific Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for this outbreak; information must be gleaned from other reports published in the FDA Consumer and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

 

A 2004 outbreak in Pennsylvania and New Jersey involved multidrug-resistant Salmonella typhimurium infection from milk contaminated after pasteurization.

 

Despite numerous outbreaks due to pasteurized milk, neither the FDA nor the CDC has ever issued a warning against consuming pasteurized milk. Pasteurization is not a guarantee; pasteurized milk is not sterile. The FDA permits the presence of up to 20,000 bacteria /ml and 10 E.coli/ml in milk after the pasteurization process has been completed.

 

Because pasteurization destroys probiotics (good bacteria), any harmful bacteria present in the milk after pasteurization can and will flourish. On the other hand, published research shows that good bacteria and many other components in raw milk (can)actually destroy pathogens added to the milk.

 

http://www.realmilk.com/press-release-12mar07.html

 

 

and...

 

http://www.realmilk.com/foodborne.html

Edited October 8, 2011 by JENinOR