Is this a case of “no news is good news”? Is this evidence to support commenters’ assertion that the verdict would be politically polarizing, and that votes could be lost either way the judge decides? We do know that already back in 2006, the McGuinty government decided not to support a private members bill that asked for more study on the raw milk question.
And we do know that lobbyists for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario seemed to have something to do with it. Rumor was that the DFO promised their members support in the next election (that’s now) if McGuinty would uphold the existing prohibition against the competing raw milk product. DFO farmers had of course been losing market share for some time, due probably to increasing numbers of people diagnosed with supposed “lactose intolerance”, who found they felt better if they’d just cut dairy out of their diets altogether.
However, if the judge would rule before the election against Michael Schmidt and in favour of the province’s appeal, that could result in some lost votes as well, from the legions of those who support raw milk choice. I believe we earlier reported that such people made up some 70% of the electorate according to a poll. So there’s lots to lose either way. Of course these political considerations may not be affecting the delay at all, and we may simply be spinning conspiracy theories where no conspiracy exists.
Perhaps some things will become clearer over the next few months.