PDA

View Full Version : The FDA vs Raw Milk and the Constitution



PoliCon
05-28-2010, 10:58 PM
by Mike Adams, NaturalNews.com

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom. These views will shock you, but they reveal the true evil intent of the FDA and why it is truly a rogue federal agency.

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.


You have no natural right to food

The FTCLDF highlighted a few of the key phrases from the FDA’s response document in a recent email to its supporters. They include the following two statements from the FDA:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim.

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

The U.S. government’s secret agenda to eliminate raw milk

Raw milk has been in the spotlight recently as defenders of the food are constantly battling with state and federal authorities over the freedom to buy and sell it. At the national level, the FDA has been on a ruthless crusade to eliminate all sales of raw milk everywhere. Lately, the agency seems to have shifted its tactics from attacking raw milk dairy farmers directly to going after raw milk “buying clubs” and “cow-share” programs, which effectively bypass the draconian laws in many states by establishing private contracts between individuals.

In a cow-share program, you buy a share of the cow’s produced milk, and you pay a cost of the cow’s upkeep. It’s sort of like CSA shares for farm veggies, but with cow’s milk instead of veggies. This arrangement drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

It certainly has nothing to do with food safety, as the FDA commonly claims is its reason for opposing it. Raw milk’s track record of safety is phenomenal, and all legitimate studies indicate that it’s actually less prone to harbor harmful bacteria than the pasteurized stuff (which is all dead, modified milk anyway).

According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.

But apparently the facts don’t really matter to the FDA (is anyone surprised?) because the agency continues to repeat false talking points about how raw milk is inherently dangerous and that drinking it is “like play Russian Roulette with your health”.

Big Dairy behind push to eliminate raw milk

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

Recently in Massachusetts, for example, the state’s Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) has been targeting raw milk buying clubs that purchase raw milk from rural dairy farms and have it delivered to urban drop-off points where many of the customers live. Raw milk sales are legal in Massachusetts as long as they are done at the farm, and the state has long tolerated buying clubs, which are convenient for customers and technically perfectly legal.

But this situation now seems to have changed. MDAR recently sent cease-and-desist letters to four buying clubs even though there is no Massachusetts law that prohibits their existence. When club members challenged the legitimacy of the warnings, MDAR decided to propose a new regulation to specifically outlaw buying clubs. (They just can’t stand the fact that people are buying raw milk, can they?)

Get this: Scott Soares, a Massachusetts legislator who is friends with the MDAR commissioner, held a preliminary meeting in advance of the May 10th proposal hearing to discuss the matter with interested parties. Fifteen educated and passionate consumers and farmers of raw milk showed up to challenge Soares, who ended up revealing to them that “large dairy producers” had contacted him to push for raw milk restrictions.

To make matters worse, it was revealed that Soares failed to follow proper protocol by not opening a docket to keep a record of all interactions relating to the proposal. So not only did Soares reveal that he’s basically bowing to political pressure from Big Dairy by supporting the restrictions, but he’s also violating proper legislative procedure in the process.

CONTINUED (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/11/the-fda-vs-the-constitution/)

Elspeth
05-28-2010, 11:03 PM
“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]

“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]


WHAT?

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 11:08 PM
WHAT?

exactly.:mad:

Gingersnap
05-28-2010, 11:26 PM
This stuff infuriates me. I have to buy shares in a dairy farm to get freaking milk. It's amazingly arrogant to tell adults what to eat.

Rockntractor
05-28-2010, 11:27 PM
I can drink raw milk from my own goats, I can give away milk from my goats but if I sell it they will converge on me like a drug dealer!

Elspeth
05-29-2010, 12:50 AM
I can drink raw milk from my own goats, I can give away milk from my goats but if I sell it they will converge on me like a drug dealer!

Actually, you'd be better off as a drug dealer, especially just right over the Arizona border.:D

This ruling is absolute crap. We are all "children of the government"?

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 12:58 AM
Actually, you'd be better off as a drug dealer, especially just right over the Arizona border.:D

This ruling is absolute crap. We are all "children of the government"?

They know what is best for us. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 01:19 AM
It just absolutely floors me, a beast created by God or mother nature for some of you and I cannot sell the milk from it unless all the beneficial enzymes and bacterias are destroyed. Much of our freedom was destroyed long ago.

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 01:25 AM
It just absolutely floors me, a beast created by God or mother nature for some of you and I cannot sell the milk from it unless all the beneficial enzymes and bacterias are destroyed. Much of our freedom was destroyed long ago.

and all of the mind control drugs installed. . . . ;)

Kay
05-29-2010, 10:41 AM
I could see the bridge 'as lined with bears
But I didn't have a doggone dime
I says Pig-Pen, this here's the Rubber Duck
We just ain't a gonna pay no toll
So we crashed the gate doin' ninety-eight
I says, let them [milk]truckers roll, 10-4

NJCardFan
05-29-2010, 10:44 AM
Actually, you'd be better off as a drug dealer, especially just right over the Arizona border.:D

This ruling is absolute crap. We are all "children of the government"?

It is the nanny state, no?

fettpett
05-29-2010, 11:28 AM
are we really surprised? i mean think of all the crap they let companies that make diet stuff put into their food...most of it makes you hungry and has addictive properties.

noonwitch
06-01-2010, 11:01 AM
It just absolutely floors me, a beast created by God or mother nature for some of you and I cannot sell the milk from it unless all the beneficial enzymes and bacterias are destroyed. Much of our freedom was destroyed long ago.



I have to say that I've never had milk that wasn't homogenized first. My mom was always big on that, and to this day, she claims that the effects of the PBB contamination in Michigan were mitigated by the process of homogenizing milk first, so the farmers were the ones who had the most health issues from consuming the contaminated milk. I think that if someone actually researched the issue, they'd find that a higher than average number of people who grew up or lived in West Michigan in the early 70s have IBS, Krohn's, and UC. But everyone in Michigan likes to pretend the whole thing never happened.


The PBB poisoning is one of those f&%#-ups that only the federal government could make, but it hit the less-populated part of Michigan. If Sealtest and Twin Pines had bought their milk from Michigan farmers, Detroit and it's suburbs would have been impacted. Neither of those companies are really in business like they used to be, but they were the main providers of milk to metro Detroit at the time.