Food regulation vs food freedom

Radio program looks at the big picture:



Filed under News

19 responses to “Food regulation vs food freedom

  1. Forced government monopoly regulation IS the antithesis of food freedom. I am not stupid enough to even consider this as they are mutually exclusive goals.
    If you want to have you food inspected by some entity then vote with your dollars and voluntarily buy only those foods approved by your choice of inspection entities not because someone called government is holding a gun to your head.

  2. miro malish

    I recently watched another important video ( that looks to examine where we are in the world in regards to resources and rates of growth and what have you. I realize that the issues may in fact be bigger then food rights from the stand point of preparing for the future. We need to ask ourselves what is the role of business in a future where food rationing is a distinct and very probable possibility? In this context, the issues of food security take on a different imperative. If we truly wish to seek a real resolution to these issues we need to be clear and included in the broader discussion of food security as it may exist by those that are working in preparation for the future. What I am suggesting is that we need to get beyond the milk issue to the broader issue of food security!

    • Peter

      The tactic typically used to bypass the principles of freedom is fear. If one has a fear around future food security, is it just to impose on others? Nature always finds a way of correcting things. Artificially propping something up that is in reality not sustainable is only a delay of an inevitable crash. The longer we delay the inevitable, the harder the crash.
      I would suggest that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to predict if we will have a food shortage in the near or long term future. Would you, in the light of such a possibility, feel justified to impose on others? I remember the fear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Fear of it propogated support to impose. The same is now going on for Iran. When will we wake up and see the error of our ways by trying to control the future? Life is now. Fear / lack of security (food or otherwise) is an attempt at justifying what is otherwise repugnant… I would suggest it is time we put together that 2+2=4 (fear + imposing = more suffering).
      BTW, it has been my experience that the underlying force driving CSC is the fear that someone might get sick from raw milk. If this is not the case, then what is the underlying force motivating the existence of CSC?
      On the one hand, we have consumed raw milk for thousands of years no problem. On the other hand it is so dangerous that we need oversight/regulations. What gives?

      • Michael Schmidt

        Hi Peter
        Tell me about your experience with CSC that you happened to know that it is driven by fear.
        There is by the way the aspect of knowledge and skills and on top of everything the notion of quality.

      • nedlud


        I agree with you. People get sick for varying reasons and to varying degrees, but the bureaucrats always insist that it was because of some violation of their ‘stated policy’.

        This they back up with scientific innuendo, which they call ‘fact’.

        Again, you can even check with Michael Schmidt on this. Quality is a scientific measurable. Ask him.

      • John

        Peter. What gives? I think you are completely wrong to argue ‘no problem’. But, for me, the real game changer came in 1982 with the first reports of a new pathogenic E coli, 0157 H7. ‘What gives’ is the risk this carries v/v the kidneys/future health of young children. IMHO, if you have cows, you have E coli 0157 H7. I’m not certain it is humanly possible to ensure that this E coli NEVER gets into the milk (thus I favour pasteurization), but anything that serves this goal should get everyone’s vote, I think.

      • miro malish

        Peter, i use to have an idea of what was CSC. one I thought was shared by its membership, or if not, that would be shaped by its membership, or in the very least for its membership. I have the hope that it may still be so. But, as to your question there is only really one person that may can answer it.

      • miro malish

        The video link i posted peter, has very little to do with fear but the very real facts of rates of growth and depletion of resources. One point that was made exploring a culture of bacteria as that within the hour before resource exhaustion, the only limitation of space or resource happens within the last 4 minutes. that four minutes before exhaustion the total available resource (space) was 97%. Why I posted this was because it is clearly true or very worthy of consideration and the people that hold power in this world will no doubt be recieving such info. through their think tanks and what have you. The will most likely have to make some decisions and plan out how to implement them within the present socio-economic culture. They will find partners, if they themselves are not on the committee who will seek to profit from the endeavor. So if we can glean what the F— is going on we might actually be able to engage. But if we think that its about some sub textual fabricated issue then we will never actually participate.

      • Peter

        I believe it is inherently self evident. If I am not mistaken, CSC is/was to be a stepping stone for state (fed/prov) regulations for raw milk. (I concede that clarity about what is CSC and it’s goals remain rather unclear and elusive)
        Knowledge and skills towards producing quality is noble. I got that. However, the notion of “we must all stand united under one umbrella (i.e. CSC)”, like one political front, suggest that underneath the noble goal of education is another element at play. In deed, it almost seems like the nobility of education is (another?) front for an underlying power struggle.
        It seems to me there is an underlying fear that, if there be a raw milk outbreak, the fragile gains made in the court of public opinion, could “swing against us”, and “everything is lost”. As such, this is, imo, undeniably rooted in fear. Attempts to win over public opinion, is itself, rooted in insecurity/fear.
        Anyway, just my observations and opinions. If there is no truth to it, I’m sure my comments will come off as water off a ducks back. Blessings.
        Quality may be a scientific measure (if pure/unbiased), but only to a point (can’t measure spiritual vitality), and is nonetheless often disputed (see the testimony of the 4 expert witnesses in Michael’s case). I am of the opinion that we believe who we want at our own peril.
        I concur that 0157H7 is a new “threat”. But then, new threats come along every day, and there is no end to the measures that can be taken to “protect ourselves”. Going outside for a walk is a hazard. So… stay indoors. You may not get sufficient Vitamin D, but at least you will seriously reduce the risk of getting hit by a car. You may live longer… but what is the quality of your life’s experience? That you choose to take certain preventative measures (i.e. pasteurization) are choices you can make… I would find it unfortunate if a subjective measure of what is appropriate be imposed on me…
        BTW, I wasn’t trying to argue that there was “no problem”. I was merely attempting to highlight that proponents of raw milk sight how safe it is, and has been, and yet are quick to turn around and suggest how dangerous it is if not done just right. The former says: leave me alone, everything is just fine. The later says: protection/insurance/regulations are crucial. I was just calling out the air of hypocrisy that seems to me to be so prevalent in this raw milk “movement”.
        And thus, back @nedlud’s comments about measuring quality, it has been my experience that many proponents of raw milk are themselves biased, and therefore not necessarily qualified to offer objective information.

      • nedlud

        @Peter (again):

        I was being sarcastic when I termed quality a scientific measurable. As instruments of science become more ‘refined’, a law of diminishing return establishes itself. This diminishing return, becomes no return and people (the experts) turn psychotic and fanatic and completely DANGEROUS cranks and powertrippers. The goal of health is perverted beyond all reason. Even as these powertrippers declare themselves the bastions of reason and uhhh truth.

    • sorry, Miro, in this forum, you have to stick tight to the focus. Discussion of the biggest issue of all – the notion that people act according to what they really believe, often called “theology” or “religious beliefs” – is verbotten.

      And whatever you do, do NOT point out the fact that the white race produces as much food as the rest of the world, put together. Particularly, dairying. If people were to analyze why that is … no telling what might happen to the communist mythos, so-carefully programmed in to them by the public fool system.

      “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable” … H.L.Mencken

      • nedlud


        I take it your favorite ice cream flavor is vanilla. Boy, I don’t know about those folks eating chocolate….crazy eh?


  3. Food Rationing ? I don’t think so. we are surrounded by tens of thousands of acres of unused land – all we have to do is get off our arses and start planting till there is plenty.

    Well Fed Neighbor has been doing what you suggest for years….

    • nedlud


      Good comment.

      Goes along with: ‘Water, water, everywhere but not a drop to drink.’

      Or: ‘Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.’

      Modern forms of government and civilization teach only greedy stupidity and lazy and/or forced compliance with greedy stupidity.

  4. Bill Anderson

    I don’t like the term “food freedom”, because it just implies more the same commercialism and consumerism. What we really need is food SOVERIEGNTY, which is a more wholistic and communitarian view, that seeks regional self-sustaining economies.

    • nedlud

      @Bill Anderson:

      Like it (your comment). People fail (excruciatingly so) to realize how much jingoism (especially scientific jingoism, using scientific -uhh- terms to impress) is part of the propaganda and control picture utilized by tyrants and their bureaucrat pimps and sluts.

      Even Michael Schmidt doesn’t seem able to fully pick up on this.

      Great comment.


    • miro malish

      I like that.

  5. Pingback: Bovine freedom | Lentablog

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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