Farmer’s daughter and Toronto Sun columnist Connie Woodcock still dissing raw milk

It’s always illuminating to read the opinions of those who are virulently opposed to raw milk for one reason or another. This latest rant from Connie appeared just yesterday in the Kingston Whig-Standard where it’s called “Raw Milk Debate in Ontario Goes On“. Here are some excerpts from that column:

Michael Schmidt shows author David Gumpert his milking parlour on the eve of the court verdict.

“The whole acrimonious debate over raw milk and so-called “food freedom” amazes me.

Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt’s not guilty verdict on 19 charges of selling raw milk is also being called a victory for consumer freedom, but really it’s a defeat for public health.

I’ll put my biases right up front. I’m a dairy farmer’s daughter and I wouldn’t drink raw milk if you paid me.

So it always amazes me to hear people extolling the benefits of raw milk -the taste, the extra nutrients, the purity, blah-blah-blah.

And even though everyone from Health Canada to your local health unit will tell you that’s not the case, Ontarians are beginning to buy the argument. Several online media polls show many believe in the right to choose what they eat, safe or not.

I’d like to make all these folks visit a dairy barn at milking time. It might open their eyes to the blunt facts -in the cleanest barn on earth, the chances of disease being transferred from cow to milk are huge.

Cows in the barn can lie in their own feces, no matter how often the stable cleaner runs. Particularly in winter, their bodies are often coated in filth. Cows allowed out frequently can be seen lying on the nearest manure pile. And then there’s the possibility of rat bites, open cuts and you name it.

Don’t believe me? Go look for yourself. The possibilities for contamination are endless. Tuberculosis, listeriosis, E. coli, coliforms -just a few of the diseases carried by raw milk.

But hey, you want food freedom. And besides, raw milk tastes so good, right?

Fans say pasteurization kills the taste. Wrong. Raw milk is full of butterfat and fat makes everything taste better, from french fries to beef. Drinking it is like downing a carton of coffee cream. Most people drink low fat milk these days and if it’s less tasty, it’s better for us and equally nutritious….”

“….His win means he’ll carry on with his co-operative and others likely will follow.

The Ontario government has 30 days to launch an appeal and the Dairy Farmers of Ontario are already pressing for one. The DFO says it “expects the Ontario government will appeal the decision to a higher court, defend the legislation and take all steps necessary to protect the public by ensuring the safety of the food supply.”

But there’s another issue in the Schmidt case that’s seldom mentioned -the undermining of the overwhelming majority of Ontario dairy farmers who obey the law.

For 40 cows, Schmidt would have to spend nearly $1 million to acquire the quota that would allow him to sell milk to the DFO. Apparently he doesn’t want to do that. In Ontario, you can only sell raw milk to the marketing agency. And you can’t just decide to buy some cows and start shipping milk. You have to be licensed and purchase quota, a supply management system that has worked for decades.

But Schmidt, the people’s hero, wants a free ride. That’s his real mission.

So while the Ontario government mulls over an appeal -and I hope they do -drink all the raw milk you like. Go nuts. Feed it to your kids. Ignore the danger and let’s hope nobody gets sick. Or dies.”

Read the whole of Connie’s article, along with comments, on the Whig-Standard website.

Now a sampling from the comments:

SirJohnEh!: “Generations have grown up on raw milk and still do-its up to the person if they want to buy it or not. Raw milk is a beautiful thing and before chemicals came around and starting poisoning our foods people lived and ate healthier foods. Good article.”

Judoman: “I grew up on a farm and my grandma would never let us kids drink the cows milk until after she boiled it. Too dangerous she said. There are many dead children in graves that died from unpasteurized milk. Louis Pasteur’s invention of pateurization saved many lives. People in Canada lobbied the government for years to pass a law for pasteurization. There are hundreds of people in the US and Canada that die every year from drinking unpaseurized milk.
One of the main reasons that it is important to pasteurize milk for human consumption is that you have no idea what that cow has eaten. Whatever they eat ends up in the milk. All grass has chemicals in it and the hay and oats they eat are treated or grown with chemiclas and fertilizers. The only way that you can make the milk safe to drink is to pasteurize it. Hopefully this case goes to the Supreme Court and a decision is rendered. The Ontario Milk Marketing Board has a big stake in this also. This guy has no milk quota and is skirting laws big time buy selling his milk throw milk shares.”

Bedrock: “my daughter use to have a reaction to milk products

i fed here some raw milk on the advice of my father she is no longer allergic to milk

there are also links between raw milk and allergic reations to peanuts

when i was a growing up in the country we didnt have any kids allergic to peanuts nor were there so many asthma cases

we all drank milk straight from the farm(cow)

now you cnat take a peanut butter sandwich to school yet most kids grow out of this by highschool”

Here’s a link to a March 2009 column on raw milk, also by Connie Woodcock, suggesting that the judge “throw the book at Michael Schmidt”.

5 Comments

Filed under News

5 responses to “Farmer’s daughter and Toronto Sun columnist Connie Woodcock still dissing raw milk

  1. MMMark

    Mon. 10/02/08 11:39 EST

    From The Creature From Jekyll Island, a book about the granddaddy of all cartels – The U.S. Federal Reserve:

    p. 8: The goal of the cartel, as is true with all of them, was to maximize profits by minimizing competition between members, to make it difficult for new competitors to enter the field, and to utilize the police power of government to enforce the cartel agreement.

    p. 16: As with all cartels, it had to be created by legislation and sustained by the power of government under the DECEPTION OF PROTECTING THE CONSUMER.

    p. 21: But, when there is a conflict between the public interest and the private needs of the cartel – a conflict that arises almost daily – the public will be sacrificed. That is the nature of the beast. It is foolish to expect a cartel to act in any other way.

  2. MMMark

    Mon. 10/02/08 14:42 EST

    Compare the modus operandi of cartels, described in the above post, with the following wording, from the Ontario Milk Cartel’s website:

    Jan. 22, 2010

    Raw Milk Acquittal Means Increased PUBLIC HEALTH Risks

    Dairy Farmers of Ontario (DFO) is extremely concerned about the increased PUBLIC HEALTH risks connected with the January 21, 2010 decision by Justice of the Peace Kowarsky to acquit Michael Schmidt on 19 charges of violation of Ontario’s PUBLIC HEALTH laws.

    DFO has expressed concern over the decision to the Ontario Attorney General’s office, the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture.

    At this point, DFO expects the Ontario government will appeal the decision to a higher court, defend the legislation and take all steps necessary to PROTECT THE PUBLIC by ensuring the SAFETY of the food supply.

    Provincial and national laws requiring milk pasteurization are vital to preventing the spread of communicable diseases.

    At a time when all other PUBLIC HEALTH developments are focusing on the critical task of continuing to improve food SAFETY and PUBLIC HEALTH, actions that put PUBLIC HEALTH at increased risk are not in the PUBLIC INTEREST.

  3. MMMark

    Mon. 10/02/08 15:22 EST

    from For A New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:

    p. 309: >Ever since the acceleration of statism at the turn of the twentieth century, big businessmen have been using the great powers of State contracts, subsidies and CARTELIZATION to carve out privileges for themselves at the expense of the rest of the society….the vast network of government regulatory agencies is being used to CARTELIZE EACH INDUSTRY on behalf of the large firms and at the expense of the public….a world of centralized statism, of “partnership” between government and industry, a world which subsists in granting subsidies and MONOPOLY PRIVILEGES to business and other favored groups.<

  4. MMMark

    Wed. 10/05/12 11:16 EDT

    “Perhaps the most extensive effort at state control, however, was that undertaken in the milk and dairy industry. During the period from 1944 to 1950 some twenty-one states adopted milk control laws, all of them empowering some state agency or board to fix producer prices, and most of them providing for wholesale and retail price fixing, pooling arrangements, production quotas, and entry controls….in most cases they amounted to little more than a public underwriting of private arrangements between producers and distributors.”

    Ellis W. Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly: A Study in Economic Ambivalence (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), pp. 193, 194.

    Quoted in Jim Powell, FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and his New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression (New York: Three Rivers Press, 2003), p. 135.

    see also A History of Agricultural Marketing Legislation in Ontario:

    http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/farmproducts/factsheets/history.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s