Reneau’s is limiting government power, not surprising for someone who endured a combined three-year investigation of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) and USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), all in connection with providing nutrient-dense food to her community through a food buyers club. Reneau was able to turn this adversity into a major legislative success.

In 2016 Reneau along with Nate and Ajnu Wilson started the Weekly Fig, a private membership association that distributed raw milk, meat and other nutrient-dense foods from local farmers to members of the food buyers club. A passage in Weekly Fig’s Articles of Association stated, “We proclaim the freedom to choose and decide for ourselves, the types of products, services and methods that we think best for healthy eating and preventing illness and disease of our minds and bodies, and for achieving and maintaining optimal wellness. We proclaim and reserve the right to healthy food options that include, but are not limited to, cutting-edge discoveries and farming practices used by any types of healers or therapists or practitioners the world over, whether traditional or non-traditional, conventional or non-conventional.” 

Weekly Fig rented out space to handle the storage and distribution of farm-produced food to its members; a short time after it had been in operation, a health department inspector barged in on the facility and conducted an unauthorized, warrantless inspection. The health department subsequently issued the Weekly Fig citations for not having the proper licenses for what they were doing. Soon after, TDA became involved sending its own inspector over to the facility. Reneau refused to let the inspector in, claiming TDA did not have jurisdiction over a private buyers club distributing food only to its members. TDA followed up by sending a warning letter to Weekly Fig stating, among other violations, that it was illegally operating a food establishment without a license and offering raw milk for sale. When TDA and the buyers club couldn’t come to a resolution on the matter, the department sent further correspondence to Weekly Fig putting Reneau and the Wilsons on notice that “future violations of the same or similar sort, i.e., unlicensed operation as a food establishment or sale of raw milk—will be considered grounds for the department to seek actions for injunction and or criminal charges.”

TDA did not take an enforcement action against Weekly Fig, but the threat of one remained over its head; so, when the 2017 Tennessee legislative session rolled around, Reneau contacted State Senator Frank Niceley to see if he could help the food buyers club with legislation.  Niceley introduced Senate Bill 651 (SB 651) which established that there was no regulation or licensing requirement for a “farm to consumer distribution point.“ Reneau testified at a Senate committee hearing for the bill; on May 11, 2017, SB651 was signed into law. A law distinguishing between the public and private distribution of food was now on the books—a major victory for food buyers clubs and farmers in Tennessee.

Unfortunately, Reneau’s problems did not end, even though there was no longer a conflict with TDA. Shortly before SB 651 became law, the Weekly Fig received a visit from two FSIS officials seeking to inspect the facility and the freezers in it. Reneau refused to let them in, telling them this was a private membership association and that, unless they had a warrant, they could not conduct an inspection of the facility.

FSIS Inspectors attempted a second inspection, and Reneau refused them again. When the inspectors provided her with copies of the laws they claimed gave them authority to inspect, she told them those laws apply to the general public, not a private membership association. In battling FSIS, Reneau showed the same courage and tenacity she did in her dispute with TDA—not accepting the government’s general assertions of authority and contesting the regulators point by point, asking for specific citations in the law to back up their claims. She grudgingly gave up ground to regulators, standing on her belief that there is a legal distinction between the public and private distribution of food.

Reneau said, “My whole life I have typically been a law-abider. I very much have a great respect for authority. It became very clear to me though, in my journey over the last 10 years with health and food and medical, that I need to be cautious about any authority exerted from those places because they had already proven themselves wrong in many cases.”

FSIS sent warning letters to Reneau and Weekly Fig after the attempted inspections and subsequently filed a court action to inspect the facility and look at the buyers club’s records. During the standoff, Reneau decided to shut down the Weekly Fig when it lost its lease and a suitable replacement within its budget could not be found; being pregnant with her fifth child made the decision easier to discontinue with the day-to-day operations. Nevertheless, FSIS pressed on with the case seeking records from the Weekly Fig.

In April 2019, Reneau had a court hearing, attending it while 37 weeks pregnant; the judge ordered that she appear for a deposition and bring buyers club records. The deposition took place in July 2019; Reneau brought her two-month-old baby with her—nursing the baby throughout the questioning from DOJ and USDA attorneys. She was worried about protecting the privacy of her club members and farmers; as it turned out, the deposition was more about getting the matter off FSIS’s desk—after two years, the federal investigation of Weekly Fig was over.

Through her experience with the Weekly Fig, Reneau has seen a side of government that most have not. She says, “I would just like to see less of the government making decisions on behalf of people as it affects their private lives. We should be able to make decisions for ourselves as long as it is not impacting other people … I just feel like the government has taken too much of a role in private life and that is where I would like to see things shift.”

Michele Reneau is active in defending faith, family and freedom, and constitutional rights—including the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing, health and education of their children according to their values and beliefs. Acting on the courage of her convictions, she is someone who walks the talk.

The post How One Weston Price Chapter Leader Made an Impact appeared first on Real Milk.

December 15, 2024 Update

Since 2016, the meat and poultry sales of Amish farmer Amos Miller have been subject to federal investigation and enforcement. The obvious question has been: when would the government move against his raw dairy operation?

That shoe dropped on January 4, 2024, when agents from the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) raided Miller’s Organic Farm in response to two cases of foodborne illness linked to Miller’s products.

On December 19, 2023, the New York State Department of Health informed PDA of the illness of a child who consumed raw eggnog contaminated with shiga toxin producing E. coli (STEC) “reported to be from MOF” [Miller’s Organic Farm]. The PDA claimed it also had a report of illness from Michigan.

QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE

According to PDA, the eggnog tested positive for STEC. There are many strains of STEC, but the state did not test to find out whether the strain found in the sick child’s stool sample was a match to the strain in the eggnog; nor did the department look for other possible sources of the contaminant (such as the local water), or check to see whether other individuals were hospitalized for STEC at the same time.

Subsequently, the Michigan Department of Health attributed to STEC the illness of a child whose parents purchased MOF products; test results of the Miller Farm products that the child’s family had on hand were all negative.

After some dairy products on the farm tested positive for listeria, PDA followed up with a Notice of Detention order on January 11, prohibiting the removal of an estimated $100,000 worth of food products from the premises of Miller’s farm on the grounds that all the detained foods were either adulterated or misbranded under Pennsylvania law. PDA later issued a destruction order for all the food under detention.

INJUNCTION

On January 25, after filing an emergency motion, PDA obtained a temporary injunction from Judge Thomas Sponaugle in the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas prohibiting Miller from selling raw milk and cheese until he obtained a permit from PDA and further prohibiting him from selling any food until he registered as a food establishment with PDA and obtained a retail food facility license from the department. The judge granted the injunction ex parte, meaning Miller and his attorney Robert Barnes had no opportunity to present the farmer’s side of the case before Judge Sponaugle issued his order granting the injunction.

COURT PROCEEDINGS

On February 29, the judge held a hearing to determine whether to lift the injunction. Hundreds of Miller’s supporters rallied outside the Lancaster County courthouse. Before the hearing, Barnes submitted testimonials from 354 members of Miller’s food buyers club stating how food from MOF had benefited their health. In addition, four members testified at the hearing on how foods from Amos Miller had improved their own or family members’ health. Judge Sponaugle said that he didn’t doubt the sincerity of those submitting testimonials, but asked, “Why doesn’t he just go get a permit?”¹ Barnes’ response was that Miller would get a permit, but that dairy farmers obtaining one can sell only milk and aged cheese, and not other products like butter, kefir and yogurt that Miller’s patrons want.

One of Barnes’ expert witnesses was Margaret Coleman, a medical biologist who formerly worked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. She reviewed all of the 33 samples that PDA took from Amos’ farm. Eight out of 33 samples showed evidence of harmful microbes, according to PDA. However, Coleman countered by saying that it is not the “presence” of these microbes that matters, but rather the “percentage” of microbes within the cell mass of the sample. The percentage of microbes present were well below the limits of what is considered to be harmful, according to Coleman and FDA standards.

Barnes said during the hearing that maintaining the injunction would be an extraordinary move and that it could make an eventual ruling in favor of Miller meaningless with the injunction having put the farmer out of business long before. Nevertheless, the following day, the judge ruled that the January injunction prohibiting sales of MOF raw milk products would stay in place, amending its terms to allow Miller to sell all other foods.

The judge stated in his opinion that “. . .this court cannot ignore the commonwealth’s regulations requiring a permit to sell raw milk.”² Judge Sponaugle did leave open the possibility of lifting the injunction if Miller at least began the process of applying for a permit. Barnes had tried to persuade the judge to limit the scope of the injunction to Pennsylvania, disclosing that nearly all the farmer’s sales were to out-of-state customers.

Barnes issued the following statement after the ruling:

“The court correctly found no safety risk from any Amos Miller food, and expressly recognized the sincere testimony of Amos Miller’s food consumers of the real benefits of his food. The court correctly pulled back on the scope of the injunction so that it only prohibits marketing and sale of raw milk products and exempts family and noncommercial use. The court accepts the need people have for Amos Miller’s products, but claims the legislature must fix that need. While we welcome the call for legislative remedy, we will appeal the order, and the members will be filing a civil rights suit against Secretary Redding for violating their constitutional rights. Secretary Redding has annointed himself the Pope of food for the entire country; if he doesn’t bless your food, you’re not allowed to eat it or even possess it. Would anyone in their right mind choose PDA plane food over Amos Miller Amish farmed food? PDA does not have the legal authority to govern the choices of people in Minnesota, North Carolina, Tennessee and every other state of the union outside Pennsylvania. This case will define the future of food freedom in America and it has only just begun.”³

WHAT’S NEXT

After surviving a seven-year federal investigation and enforcement action against his meat and poultry sales, there’s no doubting Miller’s resolve to make it through his battle with PDA.

Miller’s case can help other Pennsylvania farmers. PDA agreed almost five years ago to issue regulations legalizing raw butter sales but has yet to do so. PDA arguably also has the power to issue regulations legalizing sales of other raw dairy products like kefir, cream and yogurt without any further authorization from the legislature. Miller’s case could be the catalyst to make those changes in the regulations happen. The case could spur the legislature to act as well; it used to be the law in Pennsylvania that PDA didn’t regulate an on-farm store as long as over half the sales in the store were for products from that farm. Reinstatement of that law or a similar measure could do away with the need for many farms to register as a food establishment with PDA and to obtain a retail food facility license from the department.

Barnes is pursuing several different tracks of litigation. He has filed a motion to stay (not enforce) the injunction while Miller is appealing the trial court’s decision. As part of the Notice of Appeal, Barnes has filed a motion to modify the injunction so it would no longer apply to interstate commerce in raw dairy products. He is also filing a motion to set aside PDA’s destruction order on the food detained at Miller’s farm.

Finally, he will be filing a federal class action lawsuit (a 1983 suit) on behalf of Miller’s members against Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Russell Redding and other employees of the department for deprivation of their civil and constitutional rights⁴; the members owned some of the food PDA detained.

The main purpose of the class action lawsuit is to establish a fundamental constitutional right to privacy and bodily autonomy protecting the individual’s right to decide their own diet; that right includes the ability to purchase unregulated traditional foods such as dairy, meat, and poultry direct from the farm unless the government can show that the food is either dangerous or being marketed in a deceptive way. The traditional foodways in America were unregulated farmer-to-consumer direct commerce; the Miller case has a chance to strengthen the legal protection for that way of life.

UPDATE

On March 19, Judge Sponaugle modified the injunction so that it only applies within Pennsylvania, lifting the ban on raw dairy sales outside the state. The modified injunction could stay in effect until the appellate court makes a ruling on Miller’s case.

A GiveSendGo fundraiser has raised over $285,000 of the $800,000 goal. To donate, visit givesendgo.com/supportamosmiller.

REFERENCES

1. Gruber, P. (2024, February 29). Amos Miller Remains Under Raw Milk Injunction as Judge Deliberates. Lancaster Farming. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/farming-news/dairy/amos-miller-remains-under-raw-milk-injunction-as-judge-deliberates/article_8584eb00-d75b-11ee-a6b7-cf32ece6ca36.html

2. Barr, B. (2024, March 4). Judge rules that Lancaster County farmer can’t sell raw milk to the public. WGAL8. https://www.wgal.com/article/lancaster-county-judge-says-farmercant-sell-raw-milk-to-the-public/60050558

3. Weaver, J. (2024, March 1). Judge makes ruling in Lancaster County farmer’s raw milk case. MSN. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/judge-makes-ruling-in-lancastercounty-farmer-s-raw-milk-case/ar-BB1jcct8

4. The Shepherdess. (2024, March 7). “AMISH FARMER MOVES TO TRIAL” Robert Barnes on Next Steps 2024 | Amos Miller Organic Farm. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyKUIVE7Uzw

March 4, 2023 Update

In 2016 the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) began investigating Lancaster County dairy farmer Amos Miller for alleged violations of federal meat and poultry inspection laws. The civil court action the USDA subsequently launched against Miller¹ and his business, Miller’s Organic Farm, is closer to a final resolution. The latest development in the case opens the way for the farmer and the department to resolve the case.

On December 9, Miller and the United States government entered into a settlement (“Consent Decree”) over fines and reimbursement to the USDA for expenses incurred related to Miller being in civil contempt of a 2019 injunction the court entered against Miller prohibiting the farmer “from committing continued violations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. . . . And the Poultry Products Inspection Act. . . .”² In a prior court action, Judge Edward G. Smith had levied a $250,000 fine against Miller and awarded USDA reimbursement of over $55,000 in the case.

Under the December 9 agreement, Miller will reimburse USDA its expenses and pay $30,000 of the assessed fine to the court with the remainder of the fine being “held in abeyance.” The consent decree leaves open the possibility that the court could rescind the remainder of the fine if Miller complies with the terms of the agreement. Miller currently has thousands of dollars of meat and poultry products in inventory that USDA orders prohibit him from selling or releasing in any way. The consent agreement provides that he could sell some of the inventory to members of his buyers club by December 31. As for the remainder of the product in inventory under the agreement, Miller has the options of either separating some of it for his personal use, selling it to a licensed pet food manufacturer or voluntarily destroying it. After December 31, 2022, all product still in Miller’s inventory will be subject to immediate denaturing and destruction. Under the agreement, once the product is denatured “acceptable destruction methods and means include (a) deposit in a landfill, (b) deposit in compost, (c) rendering and (d) diverting the product to pet food.”²

Once Miller carries out the terms of the consent decree, the path should be clear for him to reach agreement with the USDA on a custom slaughter plan that will allow him to slaughter and process animals on his farm without inspectors being present. The custom slaughter plan could set a favorable precedent for farmers and custom slaughter operators around the country. With the widespread publicity the Miller case has received, the USDA and the court know that many are watching what they do, something that bodes well for Miller to be able to continue making a living producing healthy food for his grateful patrons.

1. United States of America v. Miller’s Organic Farm and Amos Miller. The case is in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

2. “Second Consent Decree,” United States of America v. Miller’s Organic Farm and Amos Miller, Civil Action No. 19-cv-1435.

The post Amos Miller Case Updates (Pennsylvania) appeared first on Real Milk.

On May 24, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras (2021)¹ rubber-stamped the U.S. Food and Drug Administration‘s (FDA’s) denial of a citizen petition² filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and dairy farmer Mark McAfee (petitioners) to lift the interstate ban on raw butter, disposing of petitioners’ appeal³ by granting FDA‘s motion for summary judgment. The upshot of the judge’s decision is that FDA can ban any food in interstate commerce it wants under its power to regulate communicable disease;⁴ FDA did not provide any evidence in the case specifically establishing that commercially produced raw butter has ever been blamed for causing a foodborne illness outbreak in the U.S.⁵

FDA had rejected the petition in February 2020⁶, and FTCLDF and McAfee appealed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two issues were before Judge Contreras: whether FDA had the statutory authority to require pasteurization for butter, and second, whether FDA acted arbitrarily when it banned a food in interstate commerce that had little or no record of making people sick.

Through a statute in the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA, 21 USC 341⁷), Congress has given FDA the power to issue standard of identity regulations for most foods; standard of identity regulations are requirements prescribing what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain name in interstate commerce. For instance, the standard of identity for milk in final package form requires that it be pasteurized or ultra-pasteurized and that it contain not less than 8.25% non-fat milk solids and not less than 3.25% milkfat.⁸ FDA’s long-held position is that the pasteurization requirement can be part of the standard of identity. As Judge Contreras noted in his opinion (p. 6),⁹ standards of identity “promote honesty and fair dealing in the interest of consumers.”

There are several foods that Congress prohibits issuing standard of identity regulations for and one of those is butter. Congress has defined butter in the FFDCA which serves as a standard of identity for the food; that definition does not require that butter be pasteurized. When FDA violated the FFDCA by requiring that butter in interstate commerce be pasteurized, they claimed it had the power to do so under the authority given it to regulate communicable disease⁴. The Public Health Service Act (PHSA) authorizes FDA “to make and enforce such regulations as in its judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission or spread of a communicable disease from foreign countries into the states or possessions or from one state or possession into any other state or possession” (42 USC 264).¹⁰ There is little or no evidence that Congress intended to give FDA the power to ban a food completely in interstate commerce under the PHSA, but that is what the judge found in his opinion.

In discussing the conflict between the FDA’s pasteurization requirement under the PHSA and the FFDCA’s statutory definition of butter, the judge stated:

• [T]he two statues hardly touch on the same topic, much less conflict in such a way that one would have to supersede the other. While the PHSA is concerned with containing the spread of infectious diseases regardless of the means of transmission, standards of identity are meant to ensure that consumers know what foods they are buying. Rarely do two statutes with such different purposes conflict.⁹ (p. 7)

What the judge ignored in making this statement is that both standard of identity regulations and Congress’ definition of butter are concerned with public health; the 60-day aging requirement for raw cheese and the pasteurization requirement for milk and other dairy were implemented by FDA because of the agency’s health concerns. When Congress passed the law creating the definition for butter, it didn’t think a pasteurization requirement was necessary to protect the public health; it could have amended the definition at any time since to require pasteurization but has never done so.

The second issue before the court was petitioners’ claim that the pasteurization requirement for butter was scientifically “unsupported” and therefore “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law” (pp. 4, 17).³ On this issue, the judge’s holding against McAfee and FTCLDF was even more troubling. The most important consideration in determining whether there is scientific support for banning a food in interstate commerce is looking at the food’s history of making people ill. In the court record before Judge Contreras, there are only two foodborne illness outbreaks since 1908 where raw butter is definitively listed as the suspected cause of illness; in both outbreaks the butter was homemade.¹¹ In its letter to McAfee and FTCLDF rejecting the petition, FDA included a table listing 13 foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to butter from 1908 through 2003. There is a column in the chart indicating pasteurization status; only one of the outbreaks has “unpasteurized” in the column while the other 12 have either “not specified” or “not specified but commonly unpasteurized” in the table (pp. 18-22).¹¹

The judge upheld the ban on raw butter in interstate commerce even though FDA failed to specifically link a single outbreak to commercially produced raw butter. There are a dozen states that allow the sale or distribution of raw butter, including California where Organic Pastures Dairy Company, a business McAfee founded, has sold well over 2 million pounds of raw butter the past 20 years without incident (p.14).³

The judge justified his decision by indicating FDA’s findings that raw butter could contain pathogens that may cause illness were sufficient for him to uphold the ban, but shouldn’t the number of illnesses a food has caused be a more important consideration? Moreover, any food that is improperly produced or handled is capable of making people sick. FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban any food under its authority to regulate communicable disease; under the judge’s ruling, there isn’t a food the agency conceivably couldn’t ban.

In his ruling, Judge Contreras stated that the court had to be “highly deferential” on FDA‘s decision to ban raw butter, citing a legal doctrine called Chevron Deference, a doctrine which basically leaves the courts powerless to overturn agency decisions (p. 4).¹ As long as Chevron Deference is in effect, lawyers for the agencies before the court might as well write the opinions themselves. If the courts ever want to reestablish their independence in reviewing agency decisions, this doctrine needs to go.

The best path to overturning the sham that is the raw butter ban is to legalize its sale or distribution one state at a time. Tennessee legalized the retail sale of raw butter in 2019.¹² Utah did the same in 2020,¹³ and Montana has legalized the sale from producer direct to consumer in 2021.¹⁴ The petition has further established the excellent track record for food safety of raw butter; the move to legalize sales of the product in the state legislatures should continue.

Alexia Kulwiec, executive director of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, offered this statement, “FTCLDF is very disappointed¹⁵ in the decision, and has until late July to decide whether it will appeal. FTCLDF is considering all available options at this time.”¹⁶

Photo Credit: “Bread and Butter” by Marina Shemesh on PublicDomainPictures.net

References

1. Contreras, R. (2021, May 24). Order: Denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. [19-3161 (RC)] U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-05-24-Order-Denying-Plaintiff_Granting-Def-SJ.pdf

2. McAfee, M., & Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. (2016, June 22). Citizen petition seeking legalization of interstate transport of unpasteurized butter. p. 5.
https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1-CitPetFDA-Butter-062216-1-1.pdf

3. McAfee, M., & Farm-to-Consumer. (2020, May 25). Second amended complaint [Civil Action No. 19-3161]. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Filed-Second-Amended-Complaint-5.26.20.pdf

4. Kennedy, P. (2017, April 14). Raw butter, a communicable disease? A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/raw-butter-communicable-disease/ (Originally published 2016, June 23 at
Farm-to-Consumer

5. Kennedy, P. (2016, March 17). OPDC citizens petition for raw butter. A Campaign for Real Milk. Citing “the CDC has no outbreaks, no cases of illness or death recorded in its databases related to commercially produced raw butter illness or pathogen defects.” https://www.realmilk.com/opdc-citizens-petition-for-raw-butter/

6. Kennedy, P. (2020, March 18). FDA Denies Petition to Lift Interstate Ban on Raw Butter. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/fda-denies-petition-to-lift-interstate-ban-on-raw-butter/

7. United States Code. (1938/1993). 21 USC 341 – Definitions and standards for food: “No definition and standard of identity and no standard of quality shall be established for fresh or dried fruits, fresh or dried vegetables, or butter, except that definitions and standards of identity may be established for avocadoes, cantaloupes, citrus fruits, and melons.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/341

8. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993/2020, November 10). 21 CFR 131.110(a) – Milk. Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=131.110

9. Contreras, R. (2021, May 24). Memorandum opinion: Denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. U.S. District Court for District of Columbia. [McAfee et al v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 1:2019cv03161 – Document 23 (D.D.C. 2021). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2019cv03161/212153/23/] Accessible at https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-05-24-Memorandum-Opinion-on-SJ-Orders.pdf

10. United States Code. (1944/2002). 42 USC 264 – Regulations to control communicable diseases. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. Retrieved July 4, 2021 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/264

11. FDA. (2020, February 27). Letter from FDA to Mark McAfee and Pete Kennedy, Re: Docket No. FDA-2016-P-1852 [Letter]. https://www.realmilk.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FDA-RawButterPetition-Response-2-27-2020.pdf

12. Kennedy, P. (2019, May 7). Raw butter sales now legal in Tennessee. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/tennessee-raw-butter-sales-now-legal/

13. Kennedy, P. (2020, April 19). Raw Butter and Raw Cream Sales Now Legal in Utah. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/raw-butter-and-raw-cream-sales-now-legal-in-utah/

14. Kennedy, P. (2021, May 10). Montana Local Food Choice Act Now Law. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/montana-local-food-choice-act-now-law/

15. Kennedy, P. (2020, March 21). FTCLDF Takes the FDA to Court Over Raw Butter Petition. A Campaign for Real Milk. https://www.realmilk.com/ftcldf-takes-the-fda-to-court-over-raw-butter-petition/

16. Kulwiec, A. (personal communication via email, 2021, June 16).

The post Judge Upholds FDA Raw Butter Ban appeared first on Real Milk.

On December 10 ¹, District Court Judge Cynthia Feland put an end to one of the more ambitious power grabs by a government agency in the area of local food regulation when she ruled that the North Dakota Department of Health (NDDH) exceeded its authority by adopting rules that ban the unregulated sale of some homemade foods that the Legislature allows to be sold under the Cottage Foods Act [also known as the 2017 North Dakota Food Freedom Act (FFA)]. Under the FFA any producer can sell cottage food products directly to a consumer without regulation ². In her decision, Judge Feavel enjoined NDDH from enforcing the cottage food regulations; the department has decided not to appeal the ruling so the judgement is final. Moreover, NDDA will not be working through its allies in the state legislature to introduce legislation to amend the GGA this session, a move the department made in 2019. The filing deadline for bills in the 2021 session was January 25.

Attorneys for the Institute for Justice represented five cottage food producers challenging the rules. The case boiled down to the definition of a “cottage food product.” The FFA defines a “cottage food product” as “baked goods, jams, jellies, and other food and drink products produced by a cottage food operator”³. The only food the Act expressly bans the sale of are “uninspected products made from meat” (the sale of uninspected products from poultry is allowed if the cottage food operator slaughters no more than 1000 birds a year). The judge found that “nowhere in the Cottage Food Act is the Department of Health granted any authority to further restrict foods that can be sold under the Act.”

The cottage food regulations the department promulgated went into effect on January 1, 2020. The regulations marked the fourth time in NDDH had tried to water down the FFA since its passage ⁴. Shortly after legislation passed in 2017, NDDH issued a guidance document for the FFA that prohibited the sale of a number of foods under the FFA other than meat. Producers under the FFA didn’t abide by NDDH’s interpretation of the law; in 2018 the department followed up with proposed rules that would have again banned the unregulated sale of a number of foods legal under the FFA ⁵. When that effort failed, NDDH through its allies in the legislature introduced a bill, Senate Bill SB 2269, that as introduced would have not only prohibited the unregulated sale of a number of foods allowed under the FFA but also would have banned the unregulated sale of all drink products; the House of Representatives voted down this bill. The regulations NDDH issued at the end of 2019 banned the unregulated sale of many foods requiring time and temperature control that were legal under the FFA as well as low-acid canned foods that were also under the FFA’s definition of “cottage food product.”

A number of foods NDDH banned in the regulation would have been banned if SB 2269 had passed⁶. The judge noted in her opinion that “the Department does not cite to any legal authority establishing or even suggesting that if the Legislature fails to pass a law an agency wants, the agency can then enact the law on its own through the back door with rulemaking. Allowing such an end run directly undermines the clear legislative intent.”⁷

Judge Feland further stated, “Although the department claims that it has the general authority to enact rules governing food safety, the agency cannot adopt rules that contradict or conflict with an unambiguous act of the legislature. The Department’s power under the Cottage Food Law is limited to merely “providing assistance, consultation, or inspection, upon request, of a producer,” and conducting investigations upon complaints ⁶. Any general authority the Department has to regulate matters of health and food safety cannot extend to restricting the sale of homemade foods specifically allowed under the Cottage Food Act.

The hope is that NDDH going forward will work with cottage food producers to help them succeed rather than limiting the foods they can sell under the FFA. The food freedom laws passed in North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and some 80 Maine towns have been an unqualified success; as far as is known, not a single foodborne illness has been attributed to a producer operating under those laws.

With the COVID crisis and the resulting upheaval in the conventional food system, local food producers are more important than ever; the best way to increase their numbers is through the passage of laws at the state level allowing unregulated sales of food from local producers direct to consumers. The more local food producers there are, the safer the food supply, the stronger the local economy, the more self-sufficient communities will be in food production, and the better the health of the state’s residents.

Congratulations to the plaintiffs in the case, cottage food producers Danielle Mickelson, Lydia Gessele, Lonnie Thompson, Summer Joy Peterson and Naina Agarwal as well as to Institute for Justice Attorneys Erica Smith and Tatiana Pino who provided their representation. Congratulations also to dairy farmer LeAnn Harner for her continued great work on behalf of North Dakota Food Freedom.

1. Conor Beck, “Victory for Food Freedom In North Dakota: Homemade Food Producers Restore Food Freedom to North Dakota”, Institute for Justice (ij.org); December 10, 2020. Accessed at https://ij.org/press-release/victory-for-food-freedom-in-north-dakota-homemade-food-producers-restore-food-freedom-to-north-dakota/

2. Pete Kennedy, “Governor Signs North Dakota Food Freedom Act”, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (farmtoconsumer.org); April 14, 2017. Accessed by https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/blog/2017/04/14/north-dakota-food-freedom-act-going-governor/

3. NDCC 23-09.5 “Cottage Food Production and Sales”, North Dakota Century Code, Title 23 Chapter 09.5, North Dakota Legislature website (legis.nd.gov). Accessed at https://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t23c09-5.pdf#nameddest=23-09p5-02

4. Pete Kennedy, “Victory in North Dakota: Food Freedom Act Intact”, A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com); March 23, 2018. Accessed at https://www.realmilk.com/victory-north-dakota-nddh-withdraws-proposed-rules/

5. Pete Kennedy, “The Department of Control Strikes Again”, A Campaign for Real Milk (realmilk.com); April 2019. Accessed at https://www.realmilk.com/the-department-of-control-strikes-again/

6. “Bill Action for SB 2269”, North Dakota Legislative Branch website (legis.nd.gov). Accessed at https://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/66-2019/bill-actions/ba2269.html

7. “Food Freedom Timeline”, North Dakota Food Freedom website (ndfoodfreedom.com). Accessed at https://www.ndfoodfreedom.com/timeline

The post North Dakota: Judge Restores Food Freedom Act appeared first on Real Milk.

Often a state doesn’t have to change its laws to increase access to raw milk and other nutrient-dense foods; all it needs to do is interpret the law differently. That is currently the case in Wisconsin. There are two exemptions in Wisconsin law to the general prohibition on the sale of raw milk; a favorable interpretation of the exemptions by the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) would better enable dairy farmers to make a living while expanding consumer freedom of choice. The timing couldn’t be better.

The decline in the number of Wisconsin dairy farms continues unabated. On January 1, 2018, there were 8,801 licensed dairy farms in the state; as of August 1, 2020, just two years later, that number had declined to 7,049. Higher pay prices in the past year or so have not been enough to enable many farmers to remain in business due to debt racked up when pay prices bottomed out in the five years prior.

Since the Covid crisis hit in March, demand for raw milk and other foods direct from the farm has increased for licensed and unlicensed dairies. The increase in demand is coming during a time when raw milk’s track record for safety continues to improve. A 2018 study found that the rate of unpasteurized milk-associated outbreaks in the U.S. has been declining since 2010, despite increasing legal distribution. Controlling for growth in population and consumption, the outbreak rate has effectively decreased by 74 percent since 2005. The study looked at outbreaks from 2005 to 2016; the number of outbreaks attributed to raw milk consumption has continued to decline since then.

In 2008, DATCP issued the regulation providing the two exemptions. One of the exemptions is for licensed producers and allows individuals who have a bona fide ownership interest in a legal entity (other than an individual or a married couple) holding a milk producer license to obtain raw milk. DATCP has never specifically defined what constitutes a “bona fide ownership interest.” Prior to the regulation, DATCP approved a half dozen or so Grade A dairies where consumers could obtain raw milk in the dairy by purchasing a non-voting share for a nominal fee in the dairy holding the milk producer license.

As far as is known, there have not been any dairies to this point that have operated under the exemption; there is one dairy currently trying to get under the exemption by having a consumer cooperative hold the milk producer license. Under Wisconsin law, each member of the cooperative would have an ownership interest in any property belonging to the cooperative (e.g., the milk producer license). The cooperative model is a way to raise a substantial amount of money to qualify the investment in the license as a bona fide ownership interest.

The second exemption under which both licensed and unlicensed dairies could sell raw milk would be the on-farm incidental sale of raw milk, an exemption the state legislature created over 60 years ago. The 2008 regulation states that “a sale is not incidental if it is made in the regular course of business, or is preceded by any advertisement, offer or solicitation in the regular course of business, or is preceded by any advertising, offer or solicitation made to the general public through any communications media.” The statute creating the incidental sales exemption, however, had no prohibition on advertising.

DATCP has never defined what the “regular course of business” is, but now is a good time to interpret the term in a way that is favorable to the state’s struggling dairies. Any sale of raw milk by licensed dairies that mainly produce raw milk for pasteurization should be incidental; DATCP could take a more liberal approach as well in determining what an “incidental sale” is by an unlicensed dairy. What exactly is the regular course of business in the economy that has materialized during the Covid crisis?

DATCP interim Secretary Randy Romanski has made an effort to help livestock producers by attempting to increase access to slaughterhouses and to markets; he has an opportunity to help dairy farmers by adopting an interpretation of the raw milk exemptions that is more favorable to the farmers’ interests. With the increased demand for raw milk during Covid, the improved safety track record for raw milk in recent years and the continued loss of dairy farms in the state, the time is now.

This article was first published in the Fall 2020 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

About the Author

[include content_id=663]

The post Wisconsin–Now Is the Time to Expand Raw Milk Access appeared first on Real Milk.

In Ontario, a constitutional (charter) challenge to a national and provincial ban on the sale and distribution of raw milk is nearing the finish. In November 2019, attorneys for the 19 consumers and two farmers (applicants) who filed the challenge, and attorneys for the attorney general of Ontario, the attorney general of Canada, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Dairy Farmers of Canada will argue the case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in what should be the final phase of the litigation. Among those challenging the ban in court is dairy farmer Elisa Vander Hout whose husband is Michael Schmidt, the one who has done more to promote and increase access to raw milk than anyone in Canada.

The main claim of the applicants is that the ban violates the provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion. A brief filed in the case states that the two farmers, Vander Hout and Paul Noble, “each believe as a matter of conscience in the health benefits of raw milk and that they have a duty to provide it to consumers who share their beliefs.” The 19 consumers have purchased raw milk, consumed it and provided it to their families because “they believe as a matter of conscience in the health benefits of raw milk. They further believe that as a matter of conscience they and their families need to consume raw milk because doing so protects their health.”

The case boils down to a battle of dueling experts over the safety and risks of raw milk consumption. Thanks to affidavits from microbiologist Peg Coleman and Dr. Nadine Ijaz, the record in the litigation establishes more strongly than ever that the Canadian raw milk ban is not about public health but rather about protecting the market share of the country’s powerful dairy cartel. Their testimony shows how the science on raw milk safety and benefits has strengthened considerably in recent years.
The applicants’ attorney, Queen’s counsel Ian Blue, points out in a court filing that calling raw milk a public health risk:

• Ignores the fact that raw milk has unique health benefits not possessed by pasteurized milk;
• Is based on outdated and incomplete pathogen prevalence and outbreak reports;
• Misses the fact that over the last 26 years, the legalization of the sale of raw milk (in the U.S. and elsewhere) has significantly increased while outbreaks of illnesses from raw milk have significantly decreased;
• Ignores the fact that in the Western world illnesses from raw milk are a de minimis food safety and public health issue;
• Ignores the role of openness, scrutiny and food safety management programs in minimizing the health risk of raw milk; and
• Ignores the fact that almost everywhere else and in the Western world, the sale and distribution of raw milk is legal.

At issue in the case has been a 2018 study finding that “the rate of unpasteurized milk-associated outbreaks has been declining since 2010, despite increasing legal distribution. Controlling for growth in population and consumption, the outbreak rate has effectively decreased by 74 percent since 2005” (the study looked at outbreaks from 2005 to 2018). The government has not been able to discredit the study during the litigation.

The government’s position during the litigation has been that the prevalence of pathogens in raw milk is reason enough to maintain the ban; this is a double standard applied to raw milk—if it’s not perfect then sales should be illegal. The applicants’ response has been to show that pathogen prevalence alone is not a reliable indicator of risk because of risk-mitigating factors such as the dose of the pathogen (is there enough in the milk to make someone sick); the consumer’s immunological status; production, storage and transport conditions of the milk; and the mitigating
presence of beneficial bacteria. In her affidavit, Ijaz noted, “The risk per serving of foodborne illness. . . associated with consumption of milk procured in its raw state—while not negligible—is significantly lower than that from other foods commonly implicated in foodborne outbreaks, such as leafy green vegetables, ground beef hamburger and home-cooked chicken.”

The government has moved to exclude evidence provided by Coleman and Ijaz, among others, on the grounds that they are biased in favor of raw milk. In commenting on the motion in a court document, Blue observed that “the lawyer’s law is sometimes phrased as when the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.” When asked by Blue during cross-examination, two of the government’s witnesses acknowledged that informed consumers should have the freedom to consume raw milk.

Blue, a litigator with 50 years’ experience in the courts, has estimated that there are around 30,000 pages of documents in the case. The dairy cartel has a strong influence in the country, but with a fair-minded judge,
this is a winnable case. Kudos to Ian Blue and his law firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP for providing representation for applicants at a substantial discount.

The post Ontario–Charter Challenge to Raw Milk Ban appeared first on Real Milk.

With the Utah law taking effect, there are now around 20 states that allow the sale or distribution of raw cream for human consumption; around a dozen states allow the sale or distribution of raw butter. There are at least two other states considering the legalization of raw butter sales.

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remains the greatest roadblock to the legalization of raw dairy products in the U.S. On February 27, the FDA rejected a petition to lift the interstate ban on raw butter filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund and Mark McAfee, the biggest producer of raw butter and cream in the country. In its rejection letter, one of the agency’s justifications for maintaining the prohibition was that raw butter was responsible for a foodborne illness outbreak occurring on average every seven or eight years; a standard that, if applied consistently across our food supply, would make many foods illegal in interstate commerce. As time goes on, an increasing number of states will no longer side with the FDA, taking matters into their own hands by legalizing sales of raw dairy products in intrastate commerce.

HB 134 marks the third time in the last five years that a Utah raw milk bill has passed into law. In 2015, the mother-daughter team of Symbria and Sara Patterson were mainly responsible for the passage of a law legalizing the distribution of raw milk and raw milk products through micro-dairy herd share agreements. In 2018, Red Acre Center, a nonprofit formed by the Pattersons, was the driver in passing a law allowing the unlicensed on-farm sale of raw milk and the delivery of raw milk by licensed dairies. A bill similar to HB 134 nearly passed in the 2019 session; under the new law, licensed dairies can sell raw butter and raw cream on the farm, through delivery and at a retail store if the dairy has a majority ownership interest in the store.

The passage of HB 134 comes at a time when, with the Covid-19 situation, demand for food direct from the farm is soaring. Legal raw butter and cream will move more of the food dollar to where it belongs—at the farms producing some of the safest, most nutrient-dense foods available.

The post Utah–Raw Butter and Cream Sales Now Legal appeared first on Real Milk.

In November 2019, the Kansas Department of Agriculture agreed in settling a lawsuit not to enforce the off-farm advertising ban on raw milk sales in the state; the expectation was that the Kansas Legislature would repeal the statutory provision establishing the ban in the 2020 legislative session [see Wise Traditions Winter 2019 issue for background].

What raw milk supporters did not anticipate in the 2020 session was the introduction of Senate Bill 300, legislation proposing to ban the sale of any raw milk product (other than aged raw cheese by licensed manufacturers). Kansas has one of the more favorable raw milk laws in the U.S., allowing the unregulated on-farm sale of all raw dairy products.

Thanks to a big response in opposition to the bill, SB 300 did not make it out of committee.

The bill legalizing off-farm advertising, Senate Bill 308, was introduced but there was a surprise in that legislation as well. SB 308 had labeling and advertising requirements mandating that the following statement be included in each: “This product contains ungraded raw milk that is not pasteurized and, as a result, may contain organisms that cause food-borne illness, especially in infants, young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with weak immune systems.” The warnings were to be the same size as the largest font used elsewhere in the label or advertisement.

Thanks again to a strong response from raw milk proponents, the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources amended SB 308 so that the only required labeling and advertising language for the sale of raw milk and raw milk products was a statement that the raw dairy product is not pasteurized. The bill is expected to become law some time this spring.

This article was first published in the Spring 2020 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

[include content_id=663]

The post Kansas: Bill Banning Raw Milk Fails appeared first on Real Milk.

In Ontario, a constitutional (charter) challenge to a national and provincial ban on the sale and distribution of raw milk is nearing the finish. In November, attorneys for the 19 consumers and 2 farmers (applicants) who filed the challenge, and attorneys for the Attorney General of Ontario, the Attorney General of Canada, the Dairy Farmers of Ontario and the Dairy Farmers of Canada will argue the case before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in what should be the final phase of the litigation. Among those challenging the ban in court is dairy farmer Elisa Vander Hout whose husband is Michael Schmidt, the one who has done more to promote and increase access to raw milk than anyone in Canada.

The main claim of the applicants is that the ban violates the provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteeing freedom of conscience and religion. A brief filed in the case states that the two farmers, Vander Hout and Paul Noble, “each believes as a matter of conscience in the health benefits of raw milk and that they have a duty to provide it to consumers who share their beliefs.” The 19 consumers have purchased raw milk, consumed it, and provided it to their families because “they believe as a matter of conscience in the health benefits of raw milk. They further believe that as a matter of conscience that they and their families need to consume raw milk because doing so protects their health.”

The case boils down to a battle of dueling experts over the safety and risks of raw milk consumption. Thanks to affidavits from microbiologist Peg Coleman and Dr. Nadine Ijaz, the record in the litigation establishes more strongly than ever that the Canadian raw milk ban is not about public health but rather about protecting the market share of the country’s powerful dairy cartel. Their testimony shows how the science on raw milk safety and benefits has strengthened considerably in recent years. Applicants’ attorney, Queen’s counsel Ian Blue, points out in a court filing that calling raw milk a public health risk:

• ignores the fact that raw milk has unique health benefits not possessed by pasteurized milk;
• is based on dated and incomplete pathogen prevalence and outbreak reports;
• ignores that in the western world illnesses from raw milk are a de minimis food safety and public health issue;
• ignores the role of openness, scrutiny and food safety management programs in minimizing the health risk of raw milk; and
• ignores that almost everywhere else and in the western world, the sale and distribution of raw milk is legal; and
• misses that over the last 20 years, the legalization of the sale of raw milk [in the U.S. and elsewhere] has significantly increased while outbreaks of illnesses from raw milk have significantly decreased.

At issue in the case has been a 2018 study finding that “the rate of unpasteurized milk-associated outbreaks has been declining since 2010, despite increasing legal distribution. Controlling for growth in population and consumption, the outbreak rate has effectively decreased by 74% since 2005” (the study looked at outbreaks from 2005 to 2018). The government has not been able to discredit the study during the litigation.

The government’s position during the litigation has been that the prevalence of pathogens in raw milk is reason enough to maintain the ban; this is a double standard applied to raw milk–if it’s not perfect then sales should be illegal. The applicants’ response has been to show that pathogen prevalence alone is not a reliable indicator of risk because of risk-mitigating factors such as the dose of the pathogen (is there enough in the milk to make someone sick); the consumer’s immunological status; production, storage and transport conditions of the milk; and the mitigating presence of beneficial bacteria. In her affidavit, Ijaz noted, “The risk per serving of foodborne illness…associated with consumption of milk procured in its raw state –while not negligible–is significantly lower than that from other foods commonly implicated in foodborne outbreaks, i.e., leafy green vegetables, ground beef hamburger, home cooked chicken.”

The government has moved to exclude evidence provided by Coleman and Ijaz, among others, on the grounds that they are biased in favor of raw milk. In commenting on the motion in a court document, Blue observed that “the lawyer’s law is sometimes phrased as when the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. And when both the law and the facts are against you, call the other side names.” When asked by Blue during cross-examination, two of the government’s witnesses acknowledged that informed consumers should have the freedom to consume raw milk.

Blue, a litigator with 50 years’ experience in the courts, has estimated that there are over 30,000 pages of documents in the case. The dairy cartel has a strong influence in the country but, with a fair-minded judge, this is a winnable case. Kudos to Ian Blue and his law firm of Gardiner Roberts LLP for providing representation for applicants at a substantial discount.

The post Charter Challenge to Canada’s Raw Milk Ban appeared first on Real Milk.

by Pete Kennedy, Esq.

Update, Fall, 2019: Good news from Canada! The Crown has decided to stay proceedings in its prosecution of Innisfail farmer David Rand for alleged violations of Alberta’s dairy law. Earlier this year the Crown brought charges for the “unlicensed production or processing of dairy products,” selling raw milk, and “obstructing, hindering or impeding [any inspectors] in carrying out their duties” under the Alberta Dairy Industry Act. Each of the charges carries a maximum $25,000 fine. A trial was slated to take place sometime this fall. (See Wise Traditions Spring, 2019 issue, “Canada – Raw Milk Enforcement Moves to Alberta” for background.)

According to a letter Rand posted on his farm’s Facebook page, what the stay means is that the court hearing the case considers the case file closed and has cancelled the fall trial. Rand and his wife Charmaine were told that even though technically the Crown has one year to reopen a case file after the granting of a stay, in practice, it rarely does so. Rand has worked on an effort to legalize raw milk sales in Alberta, a difficult fight to win. Canada remains the most oppressive nation in the world when it comes to enforcement against raw milk sales and distribution, but the stay in the Rand case is a significant step in the right direction.

This article was first published in the Fall 2019 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

Canada–Raw Milk Enforcement Moves to Alberta

Original Story, Spring 2019: Raw milk enforcement actions continue in Canada; this time, it’s Alberta. The Crown has brought three charges against Innisfail farmer David Rand for alleged violations of Alberta’s dairy law: the unlicensed production or processing of dairy products, selling raw milk and “obstructing, hindering or impeding an inspector in carrying out their duties” under the Alberta Dairy Industry Act. A trial will likely take place this fall; each of the charges carries a maximum $25,000 fine. (For those who would like to support Rand, a GoFundMe campaign has been set up at ca.gofundme.com/dairy-freedom.)

In addition to the charges, the Alberta Health Services (AHS) has issued a “notice of closure” to Rand ordering him to “cease and desist the distribution, transport, processing or sale of unpasteurized milk or unpasteurized milk products.” One of the grounds for the order was that “distributing, transporting, processing or selling unpasteurized milk products” was in violation of an Alberta health regulation stating, “no person shall create, commit or maintain a nuisance.” Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF) issued a second order to Rand, a “notice of seizure or detention” requiring that all milking equipment and any dairy products, including all future production, remain on Rand’s farm.

The charges and the orders against Rand stem from a November 7, 2018, raid on Rand’s farm and a supposed raw milk distribution site in Red Deer, Alberta, by officials from both AAF and AHS as well as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). The officials conducted the raid at both locations without any warrant.

The law in Alberta, as in all provinces of Canada, prohibits any sale of raw milk; there is a federal ban in the country as well. The ban has served as a protection racket for the dairy industry, but some of the farmers making up the industry might want to consider obtaining another outlet for their milk. The Canadian quota system has been held as a model for the struggling U.S. dairy industry, but there has been a tremendous decline in the number of Canadian dairies, falling from nearly one hundred forty thousand in 1960 to fewer than twelve thousand today according to The Globe and Mail.¹

In Ontario, there is an ongoing court case where twenty-one Ontario farmers and consumers have filed in a Toronto superior court a constitutional challenge to the province’s ban on raw milk sales and distribution.² In 2010 an Ontario court ruled in a case the Crown had brought against Michael Schmidt for illegally selling raw dairy, stating that there was a legal distinction between the public and private distribution of food and that informed consumers can waive the protection of public health laws. That ruling was reversed on appeal; raw milk proponents could use a similar decision in the country that is the most oppressive in the world when it comes to enforcement against raw milk sales and distribution.

Supporters of raw milk access in Canada may go to the educational Facebook page for Farm-Fresh-Milk (be sure to include the hyphens). The intention is to show that raw milk needs to be on the policy platform of every party. There is also a website with a petition for Canadians to have the right to obtain fresh milk produced by local farms; to endorse “We Choose Fresh,” go to farmfreshmilk.ca/wechoosefresh.

1. Barrie McKenna, “Canada’s dairy industry is a rich, closed club,” The Globe and Mail, 25 June 2015 (updated 15 May 2018), theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadas-dairy-industry-is-a-rich-closed-club/article25124114/
2. Pete Kennedy, “Farmers & consumers challenge raw milk ban.” RealMilk.com, 19 February 2018, realmilk.com/farmers-consumers-file-constitutional-challenge-ontario-raw-milk-ban/

This article was first published in the Spring 2019 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

[include content_id=663]

The post David Rand, Alberta, Canada appeared first on Real Milk.