Help Support Maine Right to Food (Nov. 2nd Referendum)

National opposition is working to defeat the constitutional protection of freedom of food choice and food security in Maine. The vote next Tuesday (Nov. 2nd) is a bellwether of things to come on your freedom to produce and obtain the foods of your choice. The same forces will be working to restrict freedom of choice in your state; Maine’s fight is your fight. [Click here to view Action Alert – Please donate at RightToFoodForMaine.org/donate]—donations received by 10pm EST Monday can still go toward radio spots running throughout Election Day on Tuesday.

Real vs Synthetic Food in Maine

On November 2nd, Maine voters will decide Question 3, a referendum to adopt a right to food amendment to the state constitution to enshrine the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the foods of their choice.

The resolution is a common sense protection of a basic fundamental right–something that is especially needed with supply chain disruptions and the deprivation of fundamental health freedoms throughout the country over the past year and a half. According to the New England Food Vision (nefoodvision.org) webpage, “Where Are We Now“, the New England region imports 90% of its food and 15% of the residents in the region are food insecure (i.e., “regularly do not have enough to eat”).

The vote should be a lock, but powerful interests from outside the state led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are lobbying against the resolution. The national opposition has now turned Question 3 into a bellwether for freedom of food choice and food security elsewhere in the U.S. The opposition has significant investments in synthetic food which it is pushing on the consumer; less access to real food increases potential market share for synthetic food.

Question 3 on the Maine referendum election ballot reads:

Do you favor amending the Constitution of Maine to declare that all individuals have a natural inherent and inalienable right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being?

The amendment would add a right to food to the Declaration of Rights in Article 1 of the Maine Constitution. Article 1 would be amended to read:

Section 25 Right to food. All individuals have a natural, inherent and inalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, coaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands, or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.

There is in-state opposition to the proposed amendment from organizations such as Maine Farm Bureau and the Maine Municipal Association, but the lead opponent to the measure is HSUS. According to its 2020 annual report, the nonprofit (based in Washington, DC) has $322.3 million in assets; in 2020 HSUS received $214.4 million in revenue, with $39.6 million dollars earmarked for “public policy and enforcement”[1]. HSUS has hired Preti Flaherty, one of the most influential lobbying firms in Maine to help it defeat the proposed amendment.

The stated reason HSUS opposes the right to food is that the measure doesn’t adequately protect animal welfare. In a flyer the non-profit released titled Vote “No” on Question 3, the Misleadingly “Right to Food” Amendment HSUS claims, “The measure could also be used to thwart companion animal cruelty investigations. If, for example, a person was torturing a dog or cat (or any other animal) they could simply claim that they are raising the animal for food and possibly be shielded from prosecution”[2]. To this point HSUS has not mentioned specific incidences of animal cruelty that the amendment would prohibit prosecution of; it has only brought up hypothetical cases.

Proponents of the amendment point out that its language does not provide an absolute right to food and that the measure does not conflict with existing animal welfare laws. One supporter of the measure commented, “Industrial operations make up 5% of the farms in the United States, yet they receive roughly 95% of animal and safety violations not local Maine farmers. So now the lobbyists of these nonprofits want to divert resources meant to combat industrial meat abuses toward oppressing individual small farmers in Maine?”[3]

Another DC-based nonprofit working with HSUS in lobbying against the measure is Animal Wellness Action (AWA), a corporation founded by former HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle in 2018 [4]. Pacelle has been quoted saying, “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in California. Then we will take it state by state”[5]. AWA is currently running ads on The Voice of Maine radio station urging people to “vote no on 3 if you care about animals or the environment.”

When HSUS brought Pacelle in as CEO in 2004, the nonprofit increasingly worked on opposing hunting [5] and stopping or significantly reducing the use of animals in agriculture [6]. A look at its leadership provides evidence that its opposition to the Maine amendment is not based as much on animal welfare as it is pushing synthetic food on the people of Maine. The weaker the rights of Maine residents to raise their own livestock and produce their own (traditional) food, the greater the potential market share for synthetic food.

One name comes up more than any other in HSUS leadership and that is McKinsey & Company. McKinsey has been advising governments, military and corporations for over 90 years; McKinsey’s clients include 90 of the world’s 100 biggest companies [7]. It also manages a $12 billion hedge fund that has been used to assist its clients in increasing profits [8].

One HSUS board member is an active partner at McKinsey; another is a former principal for McKinsey, and the Chief Operating Officer for HSUS is a former partner at McKinsey [9].

The McKinsey Center for Agricultural Transformation partners with governments, donors and companies “to improve evidence-based planning and set priorities for accelerating agricultural transformation” [10].

McKinsey works with European biotech companies to expand markets for their products [11]. It was brought in as a consultant [12] to promote the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) which the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation started in partnership with the Rockefeller Foundation [13]. The Gates Foundation previously hired McKinsey to assist in implementing vaccine drug trials in Africa [14].

AGRA is pushing changes to seed laws that protect patented seeds and penalize seed trading [15]. McKinsey has been developing policy plans for AGRA and organizing lobbying meetings between agricultural investors and government representatives in African countries [16]. McKinsey is promoting policies in Africa to encourage land-spreading of sludge and industrial waste by farmers [17], consolidation of farmland control, and increased use of AI in farming [18]. Over the past 5 years McKinsey has actively promoted the value of synthetic meat products manufactured by the corporations Beyond Meat [19] and Impossible Foods [20]. Impossible Foods CEO, Pat Brown, has publicly stated, “We have a simple mission: to replace the use of animals as a food production technology, globally, by 2035” [21].

Aside from the McKinsey influence on HSUS, another Humane Society board member is the co-founder and managing partner of Rethink Food LLC [22]. That company is a venture fund investing in agriculture technology, processing and consumer package goods. Rethink Food partners include Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, McKinsey and Impossible Foods [23].

For its own part, HSUS–along with Tyson Foods and Bill Gates–invested venture capital in Beyond Meat in 2016 [24,25]. Since that time, both HSUS and AWA have been actively promoting Beyond Meat as a solution to animal welfare concerns [26].

The result of the Maine referendum on Question 3 will be a harbinger of things to come in other states. Will governments protect the freedoms of individuals to produce their own food and help build community food systems and resiliency or will well-financed corporations and foundations be successful in further restricting access to nutrient-dense, real food?

Maine’s fight is your fight. You can support the Maine effort to strengthen freedom of food choice by donating via PayPal to Right to Food for Maine at RightToFoodForMaine.org/donate.

It’s not too late to help. Your contributions will go towards purchasing print ads and radio spots to counter the message of well-financed interests from outside Maine who want to reduce freedom of food choice and prevent a constitutional right to food from getting a foothold anywhere.

Consider this rebuttal to the opposition published by The Ellsworth American [27]:

Federal laws, such as the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 (amended in 1978), The Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act of 2019 and the Endangered Species Act would still apply, contrary to the opposition argument that a yes vote would open the door to animal cruelty and abuse.

Opponents also say the measure will not “fix” Maine’s food-related problems, including hunger. Fair enough, but that’s not the point. A constitution lays out the foundation. From there, we build.

REFERENCES [last updated 10/30/2021]
[1] The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), & The Humane Society International (HSI). (2021). 2020 Annual report: Achievements for animals. (PDF, p. 31). https://www.humanesociety.org/sites/default/files/docs/HSUS-HSI_AR2020_LR.pdf

[2] HSUS. (2021). Vote “No” on Question 3, the Misleadingly “Right to Food” Amendment. (PDF). https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUSNoRightoFoodsheet-flyer-MaineQuestion3.pdf

[3] Davis, D. (2021, October 21). The right to grow, eat the food we choose. Sun Journal. https://www.sunjournal.com/2021/10/21/the-right-to-grow-eat-food-we-choose/

[4] Animal Wellness Action. (2020). Our team. (webpage). http://animalwellnessaction.org/our-team
      Screenshot (2021, October 29) of Wayne Pacelle as AWA founder and former HSUS CEO posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AWA-WaynePacelle-founder-2021-1029.png

[5] Robinson, S. (2014, May 20). Trahan: The rise of the animal rights movement. Maine Wire. https://www.themainewire.com/2014/05/trahan-rise-animal-rights-movement/

[6] HumaneWatch.org. (2016, January 26). 10 Things you should know about HSUS. http://humanewatch.org/10-things-you-should-know-about-hsus
      Updated PDF: HumaneWatch.org. (2020, February). 10 Things you should know about HSUS. https://humanewatch.org/app/uploads/2020/04/10Things_April2020.pdf

[7] McKinsey & Company. (2021) About us: McKinsey today. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/mckinsey-today

[8] Forsythe, M. (2019, February 19). As McKinsey sells advice, its hedge fund may have a stake in the outcome. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/19/business/mckinsey-hedge-fund.html

[9] HSUS. (2021). Board of directors. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.mckinsey.com/about-us/overview/mckinsey-today
      Board of Directors (see Frankleton, Kumar & Patrick) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUS-BoardofDirectors-fromMcKinsey-2021-1029.pdf

[10] McKinsey Center for Agricultural Transformation. (2021). How we help clients. (webpage). McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/how-we-help-clients/mckinsey-center-for-agricultural-transformation

[11] Le Deu, F, & Santos da Silva, J. (2019, August 23). Biotech in Europe: A strong foundation for growth and innovation. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/life-sciences/our-insights/biotech-in-europe-a-strong-foundation-for-growth-and-innovation

[12] Malkan, S. (2021, September 9). 200 Organizations ask Gates Foundation to stop funding ‘failed’ green revolution. The Defender. Children’s Health Defense. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/gates-foundation-stop-funding-failed-green-ag-revolution/

[13] Loffredo, J., & Greenstein, M. (2020, July 8). Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/

[14] Loffredo, J., & Greenstein, M. (2020, July 8). “Guinea pigs in the Global South”. Why the Bill Gates global health empire promises more empire and less public. The Grayzone. https://thegrayzone.com/2020/07/08/bill-gates-global-health-policy/

[15] Curtis, M. (2016, June). “Powerful and profitable monopolies” (p.18). Gated Development – Is the Gates Foundation always a force for good? 2nd ed. (Report). Global Justice Now. https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/gjn_gates_report_june_2016_web_final_version_2.pdf
      Report (PDF) download link at https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/resource/gated-development-gates-foundation-always-force-good/

[16] Klawitter, N. (2021, June 9). Agrarian alliance AGRA: Empty promises for Africa’s farmers. The Limited Times. https://newsrnd.com/business/2021-06-09-agrarian-alliance-agra–empty-promises-for-africa-s-farmers.rJWhAgAqd.html
      translated from Falsches Versprechen für Afrikas Bauern. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/agrarallianz-agra-leere-versprechen-fuer-afrikas-bauern-a-2132bf23-24c6-4b2e-bde5-a2e9020389f1

[17] Caner, D., De Clercq, D., & Taksvak, M. (2020, September 1). Needle in a haystack: Patents that inspire agricultural innovation. Kinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/needle-in-a-haystack-patents-that-inspire-agricultural-innovation.pdf

[18] Goedde, L., Katz, J., Ménard, A., & Revellat, J. (2020, October 9). Agriculture’s connected future: How technology can yield new growth. Kinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/agricultures-connected-future-how-technology-can-yield-new-growth

[19] Bashi, Z., McCullough, R., Ong, L., & Ramirez, M. (2019, August 16). Alternative proteins: The race for market share is on. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/alternative-proteins-the-race-for-market-share-is-on

[20] Katz, J. , & Lee, D. (2019, August 27). An incredible year for Impossible Foods. (Interview) McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/agriculture/our-insights/an-incredible-year-for-impossible-foods

[21] Brown, P. (2019). Impossible Foods’ 2019 impact report & letter from CEO. Impossible Foods. https://impossiblefoods.com/impact-report-2019/letter-from-the-ceo
      PDFposted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Brown-ImpactReport-2019-ImpossibleMeat.pdf

[22] HSUS. (2021). Board of directors. (webpage). Accessed October 29 at https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/board-directors#jakeman
      Board of Directors (see Jakeman) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/HSUS-BoardofDirectors-fromMcKinsey-2021-1029.pdf

[23] Rethink. (n.d.). Corporate Partners. www.rethinkfood.org/corp
       Webpage of logos (see Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, McKinsey, & Impossible Foods) PDF posted at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Rethink-Corp-Partners-2021-1030.pdf

[24] Pacelle, W. (2016, October 11). Beyond amazing news about Beyond Meat. A Humane World: Kitty’s Blocks Blog. (Blog). Humane Society of the United States. https://blog.humanesociety.org/2016/10/tyson-invests-beyond-meat.html

[25] Delbert, C. (2021, February 20). Bill Gates Wants Us to Eat 100% Synthetic Beef. He Has a Point. Microsoft News. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/nutrition/bill-gates-wants-us-to-eat-100percent-synthetic-beef-he-has-a-point/ar-BB1dR02Y

[26] Pacelle, W. (2019, August 1). Where Do The Presidential Candidates Stand On Animal Protection? Animal Wellness Action. https://animalwellnessaction.org/2019/08/01/where-do-the-presidential-candidates-stand-on-animal-protection/

[27] The right to food. (2021, October 22). The Ellsworth American. (editorial). https://www.ellsworthamerican.com/opinions/the-right-to-food/

The post Real vs Synthetic Food in Maine appeared first on Real Milk.

Under this sovereignty ordinance, local farmers and producers can sell their products direct to consumers without state inspection or licensing. The Maine legislature came close to passing LFCSGO statewide with Bill 925, “An Act To Promote Small Diversified Farms and Small Food Producers” – but it was voted down by a joint appropriations committee after the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry claimed the bill would cost $40,000 in licensing revenue over the next 2 years (Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund).

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today! 

The post Sixteen Maine Towns Have Now Adopted Food Sovereignty Ordinance appeared first on Real Milk.

Maine Representative Craig Hickman is proposing an amendment to the Maine constitution that would legitimize and protect private food sales between producers and consumers. “Right to Food” reads: Every Individual has a natural and unalienable right to food and to acquire food for that individual’s own nourishment and sustenance by hunting, gathering, foraging, farming, fishing, or gardening or by barter, trade or purchase from sources of that individual’s own choosing, and every individual is fully responsible for the exercise of this right, which may not be infringed.

Joel Salatin, who recently testified before a Maine legislative committee in support of this amendment, shared a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at this hearing and the tension between the two opposing sides. He describes how 30 people showed up to testify in support of the amendment, while 2 testified against it. Predictably, the two that testified against were from the Maine Farm Bureau Federation and the Maine Department of Agriculture, and their remarks illustrated how “the orthodoxy of the industrial food system has no clue what our food freedom tribe thinks and can’t imagine why we can’t be satisfied with pasteurized milk, Hot Pockets, or microwaveable frozen dinners. They see this as choice; we see it as poison.”

Read more via his Facebook post here, Joel Salatin on Maine “Food Orthodoxy vs. Heresy”.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post Through the Eyes of a Food Freedom Fighter in Maine appeared first on Real Milk.

The bill, which was proposed by Rep. William Noon, passed by a vote of 80-67 and will now go on to the Senate for consideration.

Support the Campaign for Real Milk, join the Weston A. Price Foundation, today!

The post Maine House of Representatives Passes Raw Milk Bill appeared first on Real Milk.

Representative William Noon, who sponsored the bill, said that the bill needs to be refined in the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry, but did not say when he expected the bill to go to vote. This is one of several food freedom bills the Maine State Legislature is considering in 2015.

Maine dairy farmers are divided on these bills, and not all of them believe that producers should be allowed to sell raw milk to consumers without a license. Read about some of the clashing perspectives via Concord Monitor.

Realmilk.com is a consumer education project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. Visit their website, westonaprice.org.

The post Maine Raw Milk Bill Changes Still in Committee appeared first on Real Milk.

They have reason to remain optimistic, as in early March some officials from the Maine Department of Agriculture said they support easing licensing requirements for some dairy farmers who sell raw milk directly to consumers.

The Maine State Legislature is considering two bills that would do just that. LD 229 would allow dairy farms producing less than 20 gallons of raw milk per day to sell it at their farm or farmers market without state licensing or inspections. LD 312 would exempt farms from state licensing or inspections only if the raw milk is sold directly to consumers at the farm, though farmers would need to pass a dairy sanitation course and would not be able to advertise raw milk.

Read more about who testified in support of which bill, and how each bill would affect Maine dairy farmers via the Portland Press Herald.

Realmilk.com is a consumer education project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. Visit their website, westonaprice.org.

The post Raw Milk Gains Legislative Support in Maine appeared first on Real Milk.

At least three bills would legalize the sale of raw milk in some form; one bill would create a “farms-to-farmers markets” certification program; one ambitious bill would create a constitutional amendment declaring that Mainers have a “right to food.”

Representative Craig Hickman, the author of the latter, is himself a farmer and staunch proponent of food sovereignty as well as co-chairman of the Maine State Legislature’s Agriculture Committee.

“When asked Friday whether such an amendment would mean individuals have a right to buy, prepare and eat whatever food they want — whether it comes from a licensed, inspected farm or not — Hickman said he believed such an interpretation would be correct” (see Local Activists Say They’re Optimistic – Bangor Daily News).

The growing number of food-related bills moving through the legislature indicates that many Mainers see food freedom as a pressing issue and will continue to fight for it, despite the opposition they may face.

Realmilk.com is a consumer education project of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. Visit their website, westonaprice.org.

The post Maine Activists Optimistic for Food Rights in 2015 appeared first on Real Milk.

On June 17, the Maine Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that Blue Hill Dairy farmer Dan Brown had violated state law by selling raw milk without a license, selling raw milk without labeling it as such, and operating a food establishment without a license. Brown had contended that the state was estopped (prohibited) from requiring him to obtain a license when Brown had relied on the pre-2009 state policy of allowing the unlicensed on-farm sale of raw milk to start up his dairy; the farmer claimed he would have to spend up to sixty-two thousand dollars to be in compliance with licensing requirements. He also claimed that the Blue Hill food sovereignty ordinance allowing the unlicensed, unregulated sale of food direct from producer to consumer controlled over any conflicting state food and dairy laws (see Summer 2014 update below for background).

In rejecting Brown’s estoppel argument, the Supreme Court held that Brown had reasonably relied on the state’s former position on unlicensed on-farm raw milk sales in leaving his former job and spending thousands of dollars on starting up a dairy; but since the state was not guilty of misrepresentation when it told Brown in 2006 that he could sell raw milk without a license, there was no estoppel. In other words, the government can change its policy on a matter anytime it wants and as long as it didn’t misrepresent its original policy there is no estoppel no matter how much individuals relied on a government statement about its policy—the court’s message, in effect, is that it’s too bad for Brown that he trusted the government.

Regarding the farmer’s argument that the Blue Hill food sovereignty ordinance controlled over state law, the court did not strike down the ordinance but instead construed it to read that it only exempted “local food producers and processors only from municipal licensing and inspection requirements.” The court went on to state, “The ordinance would be constitutionally invalid and preempted only to the extent that it purports to exempt from state or federal requirements the distribution of milk and operation of food establishments.” Once again a court backed the government line that the state needs to regulate direct commerce between farmer and consumer to protect people from themselves. Maine, like other states, continues to cater to corporate interests under the guise of protecting the public health. Brown remarked, “This isn’t about Dan Brown or Farmer Brown anymore; they’re telling you that you don’t have the right to come get milk from a farmer.”

There have been bills before the last two sessions at the Maine legislature that would allow the unlicensed on-farm sale of raw milk; Heather Retberg, one of the principal leaders in the Maine food sovereignty movement, indicated there will be another raw milk bill before the legislature this next session. Dan Brown might not have been successful in court but the publicity and interest generated by his case can still lead to advances in food freedom of choice in Maine and elsewhere.

Summer 2014: Dan Brown Case Before Maine Supreme Court

On May 13 Blue Hill Dairy farmer Dan Brown had his case heard before the Maine Supreme Court. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund General Counsel Gary Cox argued Brown’s case before the court.

Brown was appealing a lower court ruling finding him guilty of selling raw milk without a license, selling raw milk without labeling it as such, and operating a retail food establishment without a license. Brown and his wife Judy sold raw dairy products and other foods at the couple’s farm stand. In 2011 the town of Blue Hill passed a food sovereignty ordinance allowing the direct sale of food from farmer to consumer without licensing or inspection requirements. Later that year, the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry (DACF) filed suit against Brown in a challenge to the food sovereignty ordinance seeking an injunction against the farmer as well as fines for violations of the state food and dairy code. In April of last year, Hancock Superior Court Judge Ann Murray fined Brown $1,000 and enjoined him from further violations of the laws she found him guilty of violating.

During the hearing, the Supreme Court justices did not spend any time on the issue of whether a local food ordinance controlled over conflicting state laws but rather focused on a change in the state policy on raw milk sales. Until 2009, the state allowed the unlicensed sale of raw milk on the farm as long as the farmer did not advertise. That year, DACF required those selling on the farm to get a Milk Distributor Permit even though the laws on the books had not changed. Before 2009, the term “milk distributor” had never been applied to a raw milk producer selling on the farm.

During the hearing, Cox argued that the state was estopped [prohibited] from changing the law when there hadn’t been any change in Maine statutes and regulations because Brown had relied on the state policy in effect when he had started up his operation in 2006. The attorney claimed that it would have cost the farmer up to $62,000 to be in compliance with the licensing requirements and that Brown should not have to spend that money since he only started up a dairy due to the state allowing unlicensed on-farm sales of raw milk. Both Brown and his wife had quit their jobs to start up the dairy farm.

Maine Assistant Attorney General Mark Randlett spent most of his time arguing before the Supreme Court that Brown needed to get licensed to protect the public health and that the public health interest controls over any detriment Brown might have suffered in relying on a policy the state had for 30 years. Justice Joseph Jabar responded to Randlett’s argument by asking, “So the government never has to stand good by its stated policy, as long as it has a legitimate interest?”

Brown no longer has the dairy and has shut down his farm stand. He deserves credit for seeing the case through to the end; it’s an important one for the right to buy direct from unlicensed, unregulated producers without government interference. The Supreme Court could be issuing a ruling on the case sometime this summer.

[include content_id=663]

The post Dan Brown, Maine appeared first on Real Milk.

The state “…contends it has an obligation to set reasonable standards to ensure milk is safe and that the standards must apply to even the smallest farms” (WCSH 6).

Read a more in-depth summary of the state Supreme Court decision here.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  westonaprice.org/lab

The post Maine Farmer Loses State Supreme Court Battle appeared first on Real Milk.

In 2005, the Maine Department of Agriculture told Brown that he did not need a license to sell raw milk from his farm. But six years later, different officials changed that decision and instructed Brown to get a license and label his milk with consumer health warnings. Brown ignored the requirements and continued to sell raw milk from his farm, encouraged by his town’s passing of a local “food freedom” ordinance stating that small-scale farmers selling products directly to consumers are exempt from state and federal food safety requirements.

The state sued Brown, who lost at the trial court level and appealed to the state’s high court. In mid-May, Dan Brown and his attorneys appeared in Maine’s Supreme Judicial Court to argue that the trial court’s ruling was improper “…on the basis that the state is equitably estopped from requiring the license, the local ‘food freedom’ ordinance, Brown does not fit the definition of a milk distributor, and the posted warning sign means he ‘substantially complied’ with the labeling requirements.” In 33 minutes, they presented their arguments and answered questions from the justices that focused mostly on “whether the state’s interest in preventing foodborne illnesses and potential deaths is enough to override the ‘esstoppel doctrine.’’

Brown and his family are awaiting the court’s decision.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  westonaprice.org/lab

The post Maine Raw Milk Case Reaches State Supreme Court appeared first on Real Milk.