How is this ruling constitutional? (Raw milk content)

[maddykate]

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.

 

 

Pasterization became a God send to the people who were mass producing their milk. They were keeping their cows in containment lots and feeding them leftover cornstalks (and many other unnatural things to the cow) from their whiskey distillaries (sp?). The diseases which you named were horrid diseases, but they came about so rampantly because the milk manufacterers were changing the way their cows were being milked, as well as a lack of sanitation standards.

 

Pasture-fed cows do get sick, sure. But, a contientious farmer knows his cows and can seperate a cow that is unwell. A cow afflicted with TB shows obvious outward signs, such as sore on the teats, etc. Also, the strand of Bovine TB rarely passed to humans; more likely, it was the farmer who was milking the cow that had TB and was not practicing good hygiene. One other thing is that studies have proven repeatedly that the "good" bacteria in raw milk (that has come from a healthy cow) kills the TB and other harmful bacterias.

 

Raw milk doesn't spoil, it sours. And that has many healthful benefit in and of itself. Ultra pastuerization is killing every possible living thing in the the milk and is simply for better shelf life, not for the health of the consumer. With U/P, you do not even need to refridgerate it. It can be unrefridgerated, but is put in the fridge in the store to make it more familiar for consumers.

[Colleen]

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.

 

There's a wealth of information available re the advantages of pasteurization, so you can easily educate yourself on the subject. Cows who consume a purely grass-fed diet and are milked in a clean environment (yes, I know it can be clean, although I can assure you no average consumer would describe even the most sanitary milking parlor in those terms ;)) still produce milk that contains pathogens. That's reality.

 

There are those who cry foul, asserting that pasteurization is purely the industry's way of increasing product shelf-life. Is that an added advantage? You bet it is. Not everyone is fortunate enough (ahem!) to have a cow in the backyard or a farm in the vicinity, but that shouldn't preclude them from drinking a glass of milk if they so choose.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Strauss is what we can get here. Trader Joes sells it too as their own label "Cream Top" milk in plastic jugs.

 

Bill

[maddykate]

There's a wealth of information available re the advantages of pasteurization, so you can easily educate yourself on the subject. Cows who consume a purely grass-fed diet and are milked in a clean environment (yes, I know it can be clean, although I can assure you no average consumer would describe even the most sanitary milking parlor in those terms ;)) still produce milk that contains pathogens. That's reality.

 

There are those who cry foul, asserting that pasteurization is purely the industry's way of increasing product shelf-life. Is that an added advantage? You bet it is. Not everyone is fortunate enough (ahem!) to have a cow in the backyard or a farm in the vicinity, but that shouldn't preclude them from drinking a glass of milk if they so choose.

 

 

Yes, I am aware that there is plenty of information regarding the advantages to pasteurization and I have probably already read it. There is an equal amount of information regarding unpastuerized milk and it's benefits, and is put out by people who have no monetary gains from the information. Who benefits from a glass of pasteurized milk?

[maddykate]

There's a wealth of information available re the advantages of pasteurization, so you can easily educate yourself on the subject. Cows who consume a purely grass-fed diet and are milked in a clean environment (yes, I know it can be clean, although I can assure you no average consumer would describe even the most sanitary milking parlor in those terms ;)) still produce milk that contains pathogens. That's reality.

 

There are those who cry foul, asserting that pasteurization is purely the industry's way of increasing product shelf-life. Is that an added advantage? You bet it is. Not everyone is fortunate enough (ahem!) to have a cow in the backyard or a farm in the vicinity, but that shouldn't preclude them from drinking a glass of milk if they so choose.

 

I also realize that even healthy cows release pathogens into their milk. Just as some pointed out in the "parasite" thread, our bodies are made to coexist with certain bacteria and not all pathogens must be eliminated.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

I also realize that even healthy cows release pathogens into their milk. Just as some pointed out in the "parasite" thread, our bodies are made to coexist with certain bacteria and not all pathogens must be eliminated.

 

Indeed, many of these bacteria are extremely beneficial and are abundantly found in raw milk. Pasteurization kills these benefical bacteria.

 

I have to laugh because most of those selling raw milk are not in it for the money. I should know. We sell herdshares to meet consumers demand for raw milk. My husband works long hours with little pay and is scrupulous in his milking routine. We have an outside commercial proccessing facility and he even wears glove while milking the cows! We have chose to live very humbly to provide herdshares for our community.

Edited October 8, 2011 by JENinOR

[Mrs Mungo]

Salmonella is present in all sorts of environments. That's why everything from green onions to spinach to chicken has been implicated in salmonella outbreaks. Might be a good reason for requiring plumbing in the outbuilding where the animals are being milked? Wasn't that a complaint earlier?

 

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.

 

I don't know much about cow's milk (I don't actually drink milk at all, I think it's yucky). But, I do know quite a lot about human breastmilk. Human breastmilk contains good bacteria that destroy pathogens. However, I also know that the good bacteria starts breaking down relatively soon, *especially* once it has been refrigerated. Do you have a source for how long these probiotics last in the type of refrigeration found on trucks and in grocery stores?

[Colleen]

I have to laugh because most of those selling raw milk are not in it for the money.

If you think that's funny, try this newsflash on for size: Most of those selling milk period ~ raw or otherwise ~ aren't in it for the money. Very few people "on the ground" producing food work long hours in exchange for a modest income.

[simka2]

Yes, I am aware that there is plenty of information regarding the advantages to pasteurization and I have probably already read it. There is an equal amount of information regarding unpastuerized milk and it's benefits, and is put out by people who have no monetary gains from the information. Who benefits from a glass of pasteurized milk?

 

My thinking is that the same people who are going in for raw milk are also not going to be testing for plate count, somatic cell counts, Johne's disease, campylobacter, e. Coli or listeria in the milk.

 

My family is going to be getting a dairy goat in a few months, and even though I know "I" will be slightly neurotic about sanitary issues I will probably pasteurize the majority of our drinking milk.

[kiana]

Pasterization became a God send to the people who were mass producing their milk. They were keeping their cows in containment lots and feeding them leftover cornstalks (and many other unnatural things to the cow) from their whiskey distillaries (sp?). The diseases which you named were horrid diseases, but they came about so rampantly because the milk manufacterers were changing the way their cows were being milked, as well as a lack of sanitation standards.

 

Pasture-fed cows do get sick, sure. But, a contientious farmer knows his cows and can seperate a cow that is unwell. A cow afflicted with TB shows obvious outward signs, such as sore on the teats, etc. Also, the strand of Bovine TB rarely passed to humans; more likely, it was the farmer who was milking the cow that had TB and was not practicing good hygiene. One other thing is that studies have proven repeatedly that the "good" bacteria in raw milk (that has come from a healthy cow) kills the TB and other harmful bacterias.

 

Raw milk doesn't spoil, it sours. And that has many healthful benefit in and of itself. Ultra pastuerization is killing every possible living thing in the the milk and is simply for better shelf life, not for the health of the consumer. With U/P, you do not even need to refridgerate it. It can be unrefridgerated, but is put in the fridge in the store to make it more familiar for consumers.

 

b) I presume you mean conscientious (as contentious has a meaning which would render this sentence bizarre), to which I will respond that many times cows afflicted with Bovine TB are asymptomatic but still shedding the bacteria. We now skin-test animals routinely, but before the skin-test the only way one could tell was looking for hard lumps in the udder or testing the cow's sputum after a cough, which doesn't catch them in the early stage of the disease.

 

c) The strain of bovine TB rarely passed to humans? Sez who? Nobody knows *exactly* how many cases were of bovine source versus human source, as we didn't start keeping records until after testing and pasteurization programs had already made a dent. Estimates of the percentage of TB cases due to bovine TB range from 6-30 percent.

 

d) Probably from the farmer? Source? Human TB is very rarely transmitted to animals of any form, as TB transmission is either aerosol or through ingestion, and we aren't in the habit of feeding our own milk to calves nor of living with them.

 

e) Raw milk sours and then spoils. I've seen spoiled raw milk.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Salmonella is present in all sorts of environments. That's why everything from green onions to spinach to chicken has been implicated in salmonella outbreaks. Might be a good reason for requiring plumbing in the outbuilding where the animals are being milked? Wasn't that a complaint earlier?

 

 

 

I don't know much about cow's milk (I don't actually drink milk at all, I think it's yucky). But, I do know quite a lot about human breastmilk. Human breastmilk contains good bacteria that destroy pathogens. However, I also know that the good bacteria starts breaking down relatively soon, *especially* once it has been refrigerated. Do you have a source for how long these probiotics last in the type of refrigeration found on trucks and in grocery stores?

 

No I don't. Unfortunately the funding for these types of studies just isn't there.

 

We insist our customers keep their milk chilled by placing it in ice chests when picking it up and putting a thermometer in the fridge to make sure it's at or below the proper temp and that they drink it within a week. We have had herd owners tell that our milk has been sweet and good for 2 weeks though. That said, we are getting out of the dairy business. 1. We found out that I and my children were allergic to milk 2 months after starting our dairy venture. 2. The stress, liability, and long, exhausting hours, well, we're just over it. Our many herd co-owners were extremely disappointed to put it mildly and for that we were sorry. We wholehearteldy believe in the benefits and taste of raw milk, but for the above and other reasons it's time to step away.

Edited October 8, 2011 by JENinOR

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

If you think that's funny, try this newsflash on for size: Most of those selling milk period ~ raw or otherwise ~ aren't in it for the money. Very few people "on the ground" producing food work long hours in exchange for a modest income.

 

yes, I am very aware. Just focusing on my end.

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

My thinking is that the same people who are going in for raw milk are also not going to be testing for plate count, somatic cell counts, Johne's disease, campylobacter, e. Coli or listeria in the milk.

 

My family is going to be getting a dairy goat in a few months, and even though I know "I" will be slightly neurotic about sanitary issues I will probably pasteurize the majority of our drinking milk.

 

Did you read this quote in my post?

 

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.

[Colleen]

 

Yes, I am aware that there is plenty of information regarding the advantages to pasteurization and I have probably already read it.

Then why are you asking me to point you to it?:)

There is an equal amount of information regarding unpastuerized milk and it's benefits, and is put out by people who have no monetary gains from the information.

Yes, there's a wealth of info available re pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, presented by people who both do and don't stand to benefit from it, either directly or indirectly.

Who benefits from a glass of pasteurized milk?

Depends. In some cases, it may even be the same person who benefits from a glass of unpasteurized milk.

 

[maddykate]

b) I presume you mean conscientious (as contentious has a meaning which would render this sentence bizarre), to which I will respond that many times cows afflicted with Bovine TB are asymptomatic but still shedding the bacteria. We now skin-test animals routinely, but before the skin-test the only way one could tell was looking for hard lumps in the udder or testing the cow's sputum after a cough, which doesn't catch them in the early stage of the disease.

 

c) The strain of bovine TB rarely passed to humans? Sez who? Nobody knows *exactly* how many cases were of bovine source versus human source, as we didn't start keeping records until after testing and pasteurization programs had already made a dent. Estimates of the percentage of TB cases due to bovine TB range from 6-30 percent.

 

d) Probably from the farmer? Source? Human TB is very rarely transmitted to animals of any form, as TB transmission is either aerosol or through ingestion, and we aren't in the habit of feeding our own milk to calves nor of living with them.

 

e) Raw milk sours and then spoils. I've seen spoiled raw milk.

 

 

 

I will try to respond to these tomorrow, as it is already after midnight here. There are some wonderful resources that validate my points, if you would like to research them. The Truth about Raw Milk is the top on my list.

[kiana]

And so that I don't get misconstrued -- I absolutely think that consumption and sale of raw milk should be legal, with some regulation as to sanitary circumstances (which dairies already need to satisfy -- you can't just bring your cow in with her teats completely covered in dung and milk her anyway.)

[maddykate]

Then why are you asking me to point you to it?:) Yes, there's a wealth of info available re pasteurized and unpasteurized milk, presented by people who both do and don't stand to benefit from it, either directly or indirectly.Depends. In some cases, it may even be the same person who benefits from a glass of unpasteurized milk.

 

 

I was hoping you could point me in the direction of something that I haven't read or given me information that could explain your comments.

[maddykate]

And so that I don't get misconstrued -- I absolutely think that consumption and sale of raw milk should be legal, with some regulation as to sanitary circumstances (which dairies already need to satisfy -- you can't just bring your cow in with her teats completely covered in dung and milk her anyway.)

 

 

Many dairies do bring their cows in to milk with their teats covered in dung. They just "teat dip" them and call it good. And, I have witnessed this with my own eyes. Not just hearsay or reading from a book.

 

Must.go.to.bed.now :)

[kiana]

Many dairies do bring their cows in to milk with their teats covered in dung. They just "teat dip" them and call it good. And, I have witnessed this with my own eyes. Not just hearsay or reading from a book.

 

Must.go.to.bed.now :)

 

I guess they could be buying off the milk inspector. Ours would never go for that -- we've gotten written up for far more minor violations. (which is as it should be)

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Just a few photos for you all to enjoy. Notice how clean our cows udders are? This was not staged. This is usually how clean they are. Raised on pasture rather than confinement makes all the difference on many levels. Quality, cleanliness, and taste. Raw milk is far, far superior nutritionally and chock full of beneficial probiotics. End of PSA.

 

 

 

 

 

THIS IS BEFORE CLEANING AND SANITIZING THE TEATS:

 

 

Edited October 8, 2011 by JENinOR

[Colleen]

Just a few photos for you all to enjoy. Notice how clean our cows udders are? This was not staged. This is usually how clean they are. Raised on pasture rather than confinement makes all the difference on many levels.

Agreed. 'course, it helps when the weather's dry. Muddy cattle lanes do not make for picture perfect cows.;)

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Recent (last month or so) customer comments left on our fb page:

 

Just thought you would like to know... We are low on our raw milk so we are drinking a little store bought milk. We offered our 2 year old son the store bought milk. He took one sip and handed it back saying "Mommy Yucky, yucky mommy." About 10 minutes later he walked up to me and said "Mommy, I want MY Milk" (meaning his raw milk) Thank you for all your hard work!!!

 

This milk is tasting fabulous, I am sure it has to do with all the acres of grass the cows get to enjoy! Thanks for all your hard work!

 

I can't imagine ever going back to store-bought milk. Thank you!

 

The milk is wonderful. Thank you!

 

Raw milk done right tastes amazing. Too bad I'm allergic to it. :glare:

Edited October 8, 2011 by JENinOR

[Oops, duplicate account :/]

Agreed. 'course, it helps when the weather's dry. Muddy cattle lanes do not make for picture perfect cows.;)

 

Yes, agreed. These were taken in the summer!

[creekland]

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.

 

I'm aware of that. I was actually wondering if anyone would catch it and then this thread could take another turn. It might have worked if this thread had been slower, but I'm not on often enough to make it work with a long thread. Another creative thought semi-wasted. That's ok though. I haven't lost any sleep over it and we have a bit we're still going to get done this weekend. ;)

 

My only "last" comment was going to be that my ancestors were on the Mayflower (John and Priscilla Alden). I think I inherited their "rebellious when needed" genes. I don't consider it a bad thing. Some probably do. :tongue_smilie:

 

Since this thread has become a bit more of a discussion on pros/cons of pasteurization and I've got a bit to do this weekend, I'm bowing out. (And I'm not meaning there's anything wrong with the way the thread went!)

 

My grandfather was a dairy farmer and worked the farm until he was about 80 (died at 88). My grandmother is still alive in her 90's, but they've since sold the cows. My mom and relatives all grew up on raw milk and I had it when we visited them. It's good as long as the first person to breakfast doesn't take all the cream!

 

I have no problem with WI residents circumventing the law if they want to. It's a dumb law IMO. There are far better things for gov't to be concerned with. Being Libertarian I would argue there are far fewer things gov't should be concerned with too (this being one of them).

Edited October 8, 2011 by creekland

[MSNative]

Going back to the original post, I am not certain this will be overturned. The Supreme Court ruled that the gov't can regulate darn near anything. I think this ruling is absolutely ridiculous (both the current WI case and Wickard case). That doesn't mean it won't stand.

 

 

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

[simka2]

Did you read this quote in my post?

 

Sorry, I was not more specific. What I meant by "going in for" was purchasing/consuming the raw milk...not the producer. You guys are obviously very careful in your milk production. My comment was also, directly connected with a series of comment made by Maddykate. This one in particular got my attention, "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.

 

Could the above statement be true, Yes, but only in part. There are a host of other pathogens that pasteurization helps with.

 

I am very PRO raw milk, but I also understand that the amount of people who need milk and have access to safe, clean, well produced raw milk are not equal. Arguments like the above, that only talk about the nutrition/bacteria side, do not help us increase the raw milk/consumer ratios.

 

Hope that made sense! ....and I am lusting after your Alfalfa field right now, this drought is getting really old!!!

Edited October 8, 2011 by simka2

[LauraGB]

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.

 

If the ruling is constitutional, then it should apply to all the factory farms from where the tainted beef, pork, chicken, turkey, spinach, tomatoes, melons, etc, came from, too. I'm not aware of those farms (who are inspected by the FDA, much the same as at least one of the milk farms in question - the one whose milk was not the source of the illness) not being able to produce and consume their own food.

[wapiti]

Going back to the original post, I am not certain this will be overturned. The Supreme Court ruled that the gov't can regulate darn near anything. I think this ruling is absolutely ridiculous (both the current WI case and Wickard case). That doesn't mean it won't stand.

 

It will be interesting to see what happens with Wickard this Court term.

 

I haven't read the milk opinion, but my understanding is that state regs/laws are at issue, not federal, so the Commerce Clause line of cases would not be relevant. States typically have an ability to regulate things affecting health/safety that the federal government does not have.

[CalicoKat]

If the ruling is constitutional, then it should apply to all the factory farms from where the tainted beef, pork, chicken, turkey, spinach, tomatoes, melons, etc, came from, too. I'm not aware of those farms (who are inspected by the FDA, much the same as at least one of the milk farms in question - the one whose milk was not the source of the illness) not being able to produce and consume their own food.

 

:iagree:

 

Haven't more people gotten really sick and died from the factory farms than folks who have gotten a belly ache & the trots from raw milk?

 

I wonder that the gov't doesn't consider not letting folks cook food for fear of food poisoning.

Edited October 8, 2011 by CalicoKat

[wapiti]

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.

 

After taking a quick look at the opinion, I don't see reason to be concerned. This quote does not change the law. The opinion emphasizes that the plaintiff is operating a dairy farm and explicitly distinguishes that activity from simply boarding a cow. The quote is only applicable within that narrow context.

 

The judge slammed the plaintiffs for "extremely underdeveloped" arguments, which sort of points at plaintiffs' counsel for not having come up with anything better to support a fundamental right. When he makes that numbered list where each one starts with "no," it sounds like the judge was quite frustrated with having to restate his earlier order.

 

He's not saying they can't operate the dairy farm, he's saying they have to do so in accordance with state law. Arguing in court that the state cannot regulate milk production - or food production more generally - would be quite a challenge. IMO, here, the place to change things would be the legislature, probably beginning with seeking amendments to the statutory sections defining who is regulated.

 

This opinion is merely a trial court opinion - it's not a published appellate opinion, and affects no one but the parties. Now, if they appeal the ruling, one hopes they do a better job of arguing, because at that point I would look out for a published opinion (though not all appellate opinions are published).

[MSNative]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Wickard this Court term.

 

I haven't read the milk opinion, but my understanding is that state regs/laws are at issue, not federal, so the Commerce Clause line of cases would not be relevant. States typically have an ability to regulate things affecting health/safety that the federal government does not have.

 

What would happen with Wickard this term?

 

 

You bring up a very good point that Commerce Clause would not apply. I was really only mentioning it to show that the gov't has regulated private food production for private consumption. You gave my pre-coffee post way too much credit for specifics. :)

[MSNative]

After taking a quick look at the opinion, I don't see reason to be concerned. This quote does not change the law. The opinion emphasizes that the plaintiff is operating a dairy farm and explicitly distinguishes that activity from simply boarding a cow. The quote is only applicable within that narrow context.

 

The judge slammed the plaintiffs for "extremely underdeveloped" arguments, which sort of points at plaintiffs' counsel for not having come up with anything better to support a fundamental right. When he makes that numbered list where each one starts with "no," it sounds like the judge was quite frustrated with having to restate his earlier order.

 

He's not saying they can't operate the dairy farm, he's saying they have to do so in accordance with state law. Arguing in court that the state cannot regulate milk production - or food production more generally - would be quite a challenge. IMO, here, the place to change things would be the legislature, probably beginning with seeking amendments to the statutory sections defining who is regulated.

 

This opinion is merely a trial court opinion - it's not a published appellate opinion, and affects no one but the parties. Now, if they appeal the ruling, one hopes they do a better job of arguing, because at that point I would look out for a published opinion (though not all appellate opinions are published).

 

Thanks for the great post.

[Roadrunner]

I think generally lots of freedoms have been already sacrificed in the name of safetly. I use to spend my summers in the countryside when I was a kid. We used to line up when the neighbor milked the cow with our cups and drink the fresh warm milk. We also killed chickens and ducks in the yard to eat, something you can't legally do at least where we live. I am sure health concerns are legit, but I do yarn for less regulated existance.

[wapiti]

What would happen with Wickard this term?

 

 

You bring up a very good point that Commerce Clause would not apply. I was really only mentioning it to show that the gov't has regulated private food production for private consumption. You gave my pre-coffee post way too much credit for specifics. :)

 

I knew where you were going with that ;). I was thinking the same thing. I'm waiting for the coffee to sink in myself.

 

This term, the Court is taking up the health care law, which is likely to involve Commerce Clause arguments. If the Court gets beyond standing and reaches those arguments, Wickard may be revisited.

[mommaduck]

Going back to the original post, I am not certain this will be overturned. The Supreme Court ruled that the gov't can regulate darn near anything. I think this ruling is absolutely ridiculous (both the current WI case and Wickard case). That doesn't mean it won't stand.

 

 

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;") decided that, because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

Ticks me off that you can't even grow for your own chickens and family. Reminds me of the Orthodox holocaust where you were shot for even storing a handful of grain. Nope, all grain was supposed to be for the government. The people only got to grow it, harvest it, and starve.

[MSNative]

I knew where you were going with that ;). I was thinking the same thing. I'm waiting for the coffee to sink in myself.

 

This term, the Court is taking up the health care law, which is likely to involve Commerce Clause arguments. If the Court gets beyond standing and reaches those arguments, Wickard may be revisited.

 

Got it. (Telling you, I think my dh switched us to decaf. This coffee is not working anymore.) :) Now I see what you mean. Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens.

[tricia]

Yeah me, too. Honestly I am not much of a conspiracy or political person....but this stuff is getting ridiculous. this is why we are having problems. Our government is ours. We need to knock down all the salaries of political creatures. I am so tired of other people "protecting" us from ourselves.

 

And, I don't drink milk;)

I completely agree.