Margo McIntosh on today’s “Sustain Ontario” debate about raw milk

Today Sustain Ontario hosted a debate, which was more like a conversation about raw milk, and the political climate surrounding in it.  The debate over raw milk has been going on for over 20 years in Canada.  We tend to hear more about the USA on our news casts and have all been following the debates and raids in the USA with great interest.  It is time that Canadians get involved in our own food rights actions and educate ourselves.  This webinar was a great way to learn about the issues surrounding raw milk from both sides of the belief system.  All the participants were knowledgeable, courteous and articulate.  It was a very good discussion of all the aspects surrounding the debate about raw milk.  The webinar will be archived on the Sustain Ontario site shortly for those of you who were not able to see it.

There have been comments that this was not purely a Canadian debate because Sally Fallon and Dr. Ted Beals are both Americans.  If we had two such strong personalities who would speak on behalf of raw milk in Canada we would have asked them.  There simply isn’t anyone else as knowledgeable about the benefits of raw milk as Sally Fallon and Dr. Beals has spent years studying and researching this food.  We were very fortunate to have these two professionals agree to speak to us here in Canada.

The other four participants were all Canadian.  We had a dairy board farmer, John VanDyk, as one of the raw milk proponents and two high credentialed medical professionals and a Canadian lawyer on the panel.  For a full outline of each persons credentials have a look at this link http://sustainontario.com/2012/05/22/10428/blog/news/the-udder-truth-an-opening-dialogue-on-the-risks-and-opportunities-of-unpasteurized-milk

Unfortunately we seem to have to turn to the USA for statistics and speakers as Canada has not been as active in working towards a raw milk solution as the country south of our border has.  Nor does our government keep track of illness to the same extent as the CDC in the US.  Even our public health professionals use US statistics more often than Canadian ones.

So was it a Canadian debate when 2 of the 6 participants were not Canadian?  Of course it was.  The issues discussed are, to a large extent, universal and we had the added benefit of hearing a Canadian perspective at long last.

I will outline some of the points that caught my attention when listening to this debate.  I encourage the reader to listen to the whole debate themselves when it is available on the Sustain website as these are my observations and comments based on my own bias.  You will find a wealth of information on the webinar with which to form your own observations.  The value of these types of debates or discussions is not limited to bringing attention to a subject but also, if we listen closely, there is always something to learn.  There are a few things I will be investigating further in the coming weeks thanks to the speakers today.

Dr. Mansel Griffiths said that pasteurization was introduced in the 1800′s in response to Pasteur’s germ theory.  In the mid 50′s the temperature was increased in the pasteurization process.  One thing I would be interested in more information about is the micro filtration option that Dr. Griffiths spoke briefly about.  If this option does not heat the milk, it might be a good compromise and is worth investigating further.  He also suggested that the bacteria that causes Lyme disease can be found in raw milk?  I have never heard this before and would love more information on this.

As a GAPS (Gut & Psychology Syndrome) practitioner, John VanDyk’s presentation was of particular interest to me.  Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride cured her own son of autism using this nutritional protocol and we are seeing many main stream doctors becoming interested in her work.  Dr. Campbell-McBride is a neurologist and food scientist.  She recommends as part of her protocol, raw milk yogurt, ghee, butter and kefir.  In fact these raw dairy products are a main part of her protocol because of the increased good bacteria.  John spoke about his son who has autism and how this has motivated him to produce A2 milk.  I agree with him that there is a need in the marketplace for at least yogurt and kefir made from this milk and that the parents of an autistic child should have the ability to source it without going to the black market.  The GAPS protocols work and we will see in future that this ground breaking work will be accepted by the main stream sceptics.  John outlined two scenarios whereby he feels that raw milk could be produced safely under the current supply management system.  There is lots of contention amongst farmers about how raw milk should be produced and in what context it should be allowed.  That issue is too long for this report and a subject for another time.

Sally Fallon-Morell spoke of research that was done in the 1930′s and 40′s that proves that pasteurization creates problems in animals.  Dr. Griffiths stated that the higher temperature pasteurization didn’t come into effect until the 1950′s so in my book that means that the old research holds more weight in that at lower pasteurization temperatures it was causing weaker bones and immune systems.  Therefore how can higher temperatures not be damaging?  Grass feeding as the only way to produce raw milk for human consumption was stressed.  Also the fact that raw milk has never killed anyone in either our country or the USA while other food born illness has killed.  The main thing that I would like to reiterate here is a statement that Sally Fallon made near the end of her presentation.  If the scientists who are against raw milk think the old research done on rats and calves is not accurate in todays circumstances then why not do that research again and see what we come up with?  Her question asked what are the scientists afraid of?  I would really like to see Health Canada fund this type of research so that we have something solid to go by and I too wonder why this hasn’t been done in either country.

Dr. Rosana Pellazzari explained that Toronto was the first city to require that milk be pasteurized in 1915.  She indicated that many people, and children in particular, where dying because of raw milk back then.  I always find this interesting when health officials leave out the aspect of where that milk was coming from.  Milk from confinement cows fed swill from alcohol plants was a very different substance than the milk from grass based farms.  At the time there were scientists and medical doctors who understood this difference and advocated for a clear distinction between this milk and clean milk.  For a very well written paper on this and more on the history of raw milk please see Pam Killeen’s Position Paper on Raw Milk at this link.  http://pamkilleen.com/app/download/6577744904/POSITION%2BPAPER%2BON%2BTHE%2BDEBATE%2BOVER%2BRAW%2BMILK%2BSAFETY-3.pdf

Dr. Ted Beals explained that raw milk destined for pasteurization is a very different product than raw milk meant for drinking without heating.  He asserted that there has been an organized campaign to demonize raw milk and that campaign has been backed by the dairy industry itself.  Out of an estimated 10 million people drinking raw milk in the USA, an average of 48 people a year are suspected of being sickened from their milk.  Of those people an average of 28 people are confirmed sick from milk per year.  These numbers do not show high risk.  The bottom line is nobody has died from raw milk.  People have died from other foods that are still allowed on the market so the question is why the crackdown on raw milk.  It does sound plausible that this could all be about money and not health.  Conspiracy theory as someone suggested?  I guess it depends on what side of the fence you sit on.  From my side of this fence, I see conspiracy theory written all over this whole raw milk issue.  Perhaps I’m wrong but I agree with Dr. Beals, there is way more to this issue than health concerns.  Dr. Beals suggested we look at the Michigan Fresh Unpasteurized Milk Working Group website at this link http://www.miffs.org/MIfuwmilk/

The presentation by Sara Zborovski, a Canadian lawyer, was very interesting to me.  She explained the current laws and explained what happened with Michael Schmidt and his attempt to create a loophole in the law.  Her explanation of the Family Farm Exemption and how that might be used in a court of law was enlightening.  I hope all of you reading this will listen to her presentation carefully.  It seems that one of the issues that concerned the court in Michael Schmidt’s case was that the people who allegedly owned the cows had no written contract, no contact with those cows and did not have a legal bill of sale for those cows.  The question then is, could this law be challenged if a consumer actually purchased a particular cow with a legitimate bill of sale and hired the farmer to care for that cow allowing the owner to acquire raw milk from their own animal.  What if there was a legal agreement between farmer and consumer to this effect?  Interesting question indeed.

My question was and still is, with a black market for raw milk growing exponentially in Canada, is it not better to allow these farmers to come above the radar?  Is it not better if raw milk farmers are required to do basic testing and follow some hygiene requirements?  The black market for raw milk will continue regardless of officials raiding farms.  Those tactics are not going to work any better in Canada than they are in the USA.  This whole process is costing governments hundreds of thousands of dollars that could be better spent hunting down real criminals rather than attacking farmers.  My opinion on this is that if someone wants raw milk badly enough to sign a contract with a farmer, they are willing to take responsibility for their own health and are not a public health threat.  Canada needs to get with the times and allow consumers to decide what they eat.  We pride ourselves on being a free country and yet we let health officials dictate our food to us.  The unrest is obvious in the USA and it is happening here in Canada as well.  This food freedom issue is growing quickly in both countries.  It is time for change.

All in all this webinar was a great success from my point of view.  We had a discussion about a subject that has been taboo in Canada for far too long.  Just the fact that we managed to bring together professionals from both sides of the raw milk debate to discuss this is an awesome accomplishment.  Thank you Sustain Ontario and Carolyn Young for providing the platform to do this from and for your excellent job in moderating and hosting this event.  Thank you to all the participants for your excellent job in providing information for the public on this issue.

I see a future where raw milk is available under some kind of private agreement between farmer and consumer.  We just need to keep at it.

Margo McIntosh, RHN, RNCP, CGP – Food Activist

44 Comments

Filed under News

44 responses to “Margo McIntosh on today’s “Sustain Ontario” debate about raw milk

  1. Joseph Heckman

    I would also like to see new animal feeding trials conducted comparing raw vs. pasteurized milk.

    • For what purpose Joseph? Don’t you already know that pasteurized milk is nutritionally inferior to real milk? Why do you have to convince anyone other than yourself?

      • Alien : Because regardless of your belief system most of us in Canada still have to pay billions of dollars in taxes to bureaucrats to support their $300 000 per year wages and salaries to then enforce this outdated belief system of theirs. Some convincing and some involvement in the research and political process is required to do that . It will not happen by hiding like an “ostrich that sticks it head under the sand ” and then say, see and hear only what it wants to say ,hear or see !

      • Because one of the main arguments from government is that there is no scientific proof that raw milk is healthier. Whether we like it or not, the word we live in requires scientific proof of these things. It was done in the early 1900’s but it would be awesome to see it done again with todays research standards. The question is how do we create that reality to happen?

      • Raoul
        Your method does nothing to change the system. All I see here is, support of the flawed paradigm that the State can dictate what you put into your body. Until you change that paradigm, you may get some minor temporary victories, but in the bigger longer range picture, absolutely nothing will change. The enemy knows that and they play you like a fiddle IMHO.

      • Margo
        Anything that the government thinks is irrelevant they have no more legitimacy telling you what you put into your body as they do telling you when and how to hug your kids or kiss your wife.

        Margo if someone wishes scientific proof before they make a decision in their life they are free to do so to make then decision for THEMSELVES.
        You seem to imply that the State should use violence for any one that makes a decision for THEMSEVES that does not coincide with the special interests that the State usually represents.

        This problem is resolved by allowing people the freedom to live their lives in peace, making the decisions they see as correct for them and their families.

        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. ~ William Pitt

  2. charles jasunas

    If you want someone who’s knowledgeable in raw milk in Canada you should contact Dr. Carol Vachon.He has a web site. bonlait.com.He wrote a book entitled, Pour L’amour du Bon Lait. It means , For the love of good milk in english.I believe he studied in the U.S.A.I think he’d be great.

    • Thanks Charles. I did send Dr. Vachon an e-mail when I started looking for a scientist for our side. I’ve talked to him before. He didn’t get back to me. I would have loved to have had him speak. Maybe next time.

      • Great idea. Perhaps we could have a webinar with several Quebec researchers and doctors and/or bureaucrats or farmers on board. It would be great to get a taste of their more humane and relaxed and realistic perspective. As microbiologist Jean Dalati , who helped do the research for the new Quebec policies that now allow raw cheese aged under 60 days , said that anytime he attends conferences with research scientists representing the provincial health ministries of English Canada , the topic of safe raw milk is totally and strangely “taboo” (even at the research level it would appear ) . It is gospel truth . In such an environment we can wait forever for the right kind of research to emerge – though perhaps in Quebec ?

  3. “If the scientists who are against raw milk think the old research done on rats and calves is not accurate in todays circumstances…”

    … then why do they base their arguments on research done in the 1800’s?

    • As Dr. Beals pointed out, it is probably to do with money. Who is going to fund that research? Certainly not the dairy board in Canada unless they had a way to benefit from the results. Perhaps we should be really pushing for this type of research as part of our project?

    • Why don’t we develop some kind of liaison with universities and research facilities with raw milk friendly countries in Europe ? We could send them ideas for research as well ?
      Otherwise I am afraid that 10 years from we will still be writing that “they ” should be doing research (here in North America ) . Although Dr.Griffiths did hint that he is overseeing the research of a few things that are outside of the current mindset or box . Of course , if “they” do not see how “they” can make megabucks from that research (and without interfering with the current revenue-generating setup) we may never hear about it no matter how good it is .
      2. Margo : In addition to microfiltration as an alternative to pasteurization Dr. Griffiths also mentioned that the research groups are also looking into “pulsed electric fields” as an alternative .

      • Pulsed electric fields might not turn out to be any better. They would potentially disrupt the energetic field that good raw milk is so wonderful at sharing with us!

  4. Joseph Heckman

    I have asked a professor of animal science what it might cost to run a feeding trial on rats comparing raw vs pasteurized milk at the university. About $50,000.

    • Thank you Joseph : I would be interested to understand the processes for obtaining funding for such studies especially when it pertains to whole, organic and unadulterated foods ? Please feel free to submit an article here on it or perhaps Margo or I could contact you about it and write the article ourselves ? I am not sure about the different funding dynamics in Canada versus the US but at the end of the day once the study is published the WHOLE world benefits . Since Weston Price (WP) has a legal defense fund I am surprised that they do not have a fund for such studies as even Sally suggested yesterday in the lovely Raw Milk Webinar hosted by Sustain Ontario ( http://www.sustainontario.com ) ? It is ironic given that WP was birthed out of the amazing research performed by these outstanding doctors in the 1940’s and 1950’s .

    • Would your university do that research if we could come up with the funding Joseph? We have a research university in Guelph here in Ontario but I’m not sure they are open minded enough to even do this. I might be wrong. It seems to me it wouldn’t matter which country it was done in as long as it gets done.

  5. Let me start out with saying that I am a huge fan of GAPS, and Dr. Natasha Campbell/McBride. Please check out her work: http://tinyurl.com/d27c5of

    There is nothing here to debate unless you want to debate whether or not you should be a slave. A slave, you see does not have a right to choose the food he eats. Is that what we are? Are we debating whether or not slavery is good? That unfortunately seems to be the case….

    “If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

    • Peter

      It is obvious that, in Canada, we do not have the privilege to sell raw milk to the public. However, I have not seen nor been presented with any material evidence to suggest that we have been denied the right to choose what food to buy. I get that this is a common mantra in the raw milk movement (demanding the right to choose). However, if we call things out for what they are, I would suggest there is no legal merit to the idea that we are slaves because the government is denying us the right to choose. The evidence is plain to see. Many people choose to buy raw milk every day. Their choice to do so has not been negated. They are never (and could never) be charged for making that choice. There simply is no law prohibiting the right to choose.
      I get that consumers are hampered in obtaining the product of choice because it isn’t available in the public domain. But if the state is the nanny (because we look up to it, and ask mommy if it is okay for me to do xyz), then nanny gets to decide if you can have gummy bears or not. Once we see we are grown up (willing / able to take responsibility = free to choose), then we need only tell nanny we don’t need her supervision anymore.
      The demand to legalize sell/distribute raw milk in Canada is simply a request made to the government, asking for the privilege to sell it to the corporate body politic called the public. If the government were to legalize it, it would not be rendering a “right”, but a privilege (which only having the colour of right). Any so the nanny state remains entrenched as our paradigm.
      So… are we slaves? I would suggest that many of us are slaves to the government so long as we perceive it to be the source of our rights and liberties. Is the 10 year of boy a slave to his mommy?
      Once we grow up, we learn that the court is the authority that tells the “nanny” to back off, because Joe has grown up and decided things for himself. The challenge, here too, is seeing the court as our friend, and not some thing to be feared…

  6. I find the statement “Dr. Ted Beals explained that raw milk destined for pasteurization is a very different product than raw milk meant for drinking without heating.” laughable and uninformed.

    Most people in these parts get their “raw” milk from farmers that are selling the bulk of it to be pasteurized at a large dairy.

    If so many aspects of raw milk were not criminalized – I think it would be an even more safe product. If it was sold in the local stores not only would farming start to pay a living wage, we would begin to see voluntary certifications for raw milk dairies.

    • BC Food Security

      Alien : Ted’s comments made perfect sense. You are taking it out of context . Some of the farmers that sell exclusively to bulk plants don’t think twice to sell pus-filled , disease prone, infected milk because they know it will be heat treated . On the other hand , of course , a farmer that knowingly sells both raw milk and milk for pasteurization will take more care in his herd management practices.

  7. Beverley Viljakainen

    Thank you, Margo, for this in-depth summary of yesterday’s discussion. Very well written and presented. You’ve highlighted some excellent points with which thinking consumers can better inform themselves and work to get this really ridiculous situation moving to a more acceptable place.

  8. Carol

    “Dr. Ted Beals explained that raw milk destined for pasteurization is a very different product than raw milk meant for drinking without heating.” I would like to know how this milk is different. I have head this before with no explanation why. Is Dr Beals saying the milk from his co-panelist John VanDyke for example is very different because he ships the milk to be pasteurized than if he was to sell his milk only for “raw” milk consumption? If so, what would this farmer have to do. What is meant by very different? Their are many farmers in my humble opinion like John who produce high quality milk but at this point in time have only one way to legally sell their product so I certainly have concerns about such a all encompassing statement made by Dr.Beal. Perhaps his understanding is different because in the USA they do not have a quota system.
    It has always been my understanding from the judges comments that the system of cow share was flawed because the consumer did not really own the cow.As the judge said, it was no different than having a membership in Costco. I have said several times on the Bovine that one could buy the cow,goat or sheep and have a farmer look after and milk it or what ever arrangement you care to make and both would benefit. This is not unlike an arrangement people make for their horse when they live in town or the city.
    As far as science goes, you can always have science on both sides of the fence. “Remember the old saying 9 out of 10 doctors smoke Camels” all the while knowing they caused cancer.

    • Raw milk destined for pasteurization is “different” precisely because it is destined for pasteurization. You can get away with lots of things if you know any bad things will be killed before victims’ lawyers have a shot at you.

      Another problem is that raw milk destined for pasteurization is mixed together with milk from many dairies. Perhaps you do a great job with cleanliness and grass-feed your cows and even drink your own raw milk — but what happens when your milk is mixed with the CAFO dairy down the road, where the cows stand on concrete all day and eat grain laced with antibiotics? When those two milks get mixed together, any “good” the first farmer did is nullified. He might as well be allowed to reap a reward for his good practices, no?

  9. Sarah T.

    ” It seems that one of the issues that concerned the court in Michael Schmidt’s case was that the people who allegedly owned the cows had no written contract … and did not have a legal bill of sale for those cows.”

    Is this true? And, is this common practice in cow-shares? If this is true, then why were not contracts or legal bills of sale draws up?

    If this is true that no contracts were ever signed and no sales ever occurred, then I can see the governments’ and courts’ point of view. Verbal agreements are “worth the paper they’re written on” (i.e. none) and hold no weight in a court of law. They do not exist, period.

    I found your blog and support you. I’m not a farmer and currently do not drink raw milk because I can not find a source for it. But I want to find a source of raw milk because of health reasons for myself and my children — two autistic children with many food intolerances and allegies. These constant legal actions against cowshares and other raw milk producers prevent me from doing this as there are no farmers in my area willing to supply it and risk the legal hassle. If there is a simple way to avoid them then let’s do it.

    • Peter

      Wow! Thank you Sarah T. for reading the transcript and attempting to ascertain the essence of the rulings. IMO, the principle answers are there in the transcripts. It seems to me that few have genuinely tried to see it from the Crown/Court’s perspective (because… well, they are after all wrong, pigheaded, and in it to “get us”…).

      • Peter : Sarah was referring to the wonderful raw milk webinar hosted by Sustain Ontario (www.sustainontario.com ) yesterday and now referenced in the article by Margo at http://www.rawmilkconsumer.ca . In particular Margo was citing the lawyer’s presentation. Watch it when it is published next week.

    • Thanks for commenting Sarah! I also was interested in this little gem of information about specific contract and proof of ownership of milking animals. It hasn’t been contested in court to find out if this was done with better paperwork if it would work or not but it would be worth a shot for sure. The Cow Share agreement would need to be legally set up and signed by both parties I would think in order to be even considered by a court.

    • Gordon S Watson

      an agreement exists when there is a meeting of the minds, thus, an oral agreement most certainly is an agreement and can be upheld by a Court of Law, if there are witnesses. A piece of paper setting out an agreement, is only ‘the best evidence of that agreement’
      Our cowshare in BC had a simple, one page agreement between the Agister and the shareholder. It is worth noting that the Health Authority did NOT go after the legal arrangement … we continune to get our REAL MILK because we assert our right to use and enjoy our private property … versus the Stalin-ist dairy supply system!

  10. From Andre Voisin in “Soil Grass and Cancer”:
    “All those observations serve to illustrate how very different results can be obtained from trials based on foodstuff so variable, although identical in appearance. It cannot be stated too often, nor sufficiently stressed, that the progress of biological and medical sciences must necessarily be slow so long as no consideration is given, either in experimentation or in dietetics, to the pedological and agronomic origin of the foodstuffs employed.”
    Also from Voisin in “Soil Grass and Cancer”:
    “For all time the soil will remain the very basis of our life, in every sense of the word and from all points of view.”
    If you want nutritious food, milk or otherwise, and you fail to take into account the pedological and agronomic origin of the food, then you are entering what might be called a food lottery with little or no chance of obtaining your goal.

  11. From Peter post: “It is obvious that, in Canada, we do not have the privilege to sell raw milk to the public.”,,,,,

    === Where to begin? The Canadian brain perplexes me I have a very very hard time following the logic of Canadians. Perhaps it is nuances in the different uses of the language. This statement on the face of it has every thing arse backwards. Why would one care about privileges when your have rights? Perhaps I misunderstand. I will try to see where you are going with this…

    “If the government were to legalize it, it would not be rendering a “right”, but a privilege (which only having the colour of right).

    === You warm my heart here Peter. I despise it when government “legalizes” something that they had no right to make illegal in the first place. This gives the false impression that they have granted us a right.
    At the very least with this approach I thing the new law – dubiously granting us a right should be preceded by the following: “This law recognizes the fact that SUCH AND SUCH is an inalienable right. This law does not confer this right and we recognize that no future law by this government can alter or abolish this right. The sole purpose of this law is to publicly declare the recognition of SUCH AND SUCH as an inalienable right.” Not perfect but a hell of low better than the way things are currently done.

    So… are we slaves? I would suggest that many of us are slaves to the government so long as we perceive it to be the source of our rights and liberties.”…

    === LOUD applause.

    “The challenge, here too, is seeing the court as our friend, and not some thing to be feared…”

    === All government is our enemy. George Washington said it well:
    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
    The courts are especially to be feared Peter. They hold too much monopoly power over our lives.

    • Peter

      The word public, depending on context, has different meanings/applications. The context I used it in was that “public” is a corporate body politic” (a number of people being of the “same” state of mind, and is, as thus, one entity. In this case, the entity is comprised of multiple individuals – corporation aggregate).
      I would suggest “they” see “their” “public” as… well, like a child needing guidance and protection. You may not agree with it. And that is your prerogative. In Canada, and in the rest of the world, a nation is headed by a sovereign, and the citizens are subjects. I get that the US constitution constructed something different (and yet things have been turned on it’s head down there also so as to resemble the same as other nations).
      In the same way that I do not have an unalienable right to sell to your 8 year old child a Play Boy magazine, I also don’t have the unalienable right to sell to “Canada’s” “child” raw milk. In deed, in the same way that you may grant me the privilege (colour of right) to sell the Play Boy magazine to your child, I might obtain the privilege to sell to Canada’s public (have it legalized / get a license).
      It has been my experience that the American “freedom fighter” is often so steeped in the constitution that it is challenged to perceive or appreciate the principles upon which it was founded in a larger context… As such, I find the American brain to sometime be perplexing🙂

      • Peter you are perceptive about our system being turned on its head. Most so called Americans, are not bright enough to realize that is the case.

        As far as what a child does or does not do, that is the prerogative of the parent and not the state. Which goes back to Canadians believing a hereditary old hag called the queen is their master, and Americans and the Swiss believing that they are their own masters.

        Yes many worship at the alter of the Constitution. I DO NOT. I realize it for what it is – merely a document to constrain our federal government. I am guilty of sometimes using it as shorthand to get my point across to those that are not very astute about the nuances of our system. The word is used improperly more often than properly.

        I am beginning to appreciate the plethora of mental road blocks to those that do not understand liberty. I was fortunate to never have suffered that misfortune. That does not alleviate my frustrations however. 🙂

      • Peter

        It seems as though you are either avoiding it, or didn’t understand that I was using the “parent” and “child” as an analogy to the “state” and “public”. Of course it is the parent’s prerogative what the child partakes of. I am saying that in fact the same is true at a national level. It is the state’s (nanny’s) prerogative what the public (child – incapable of adequate thinking to be free/responsible) partakes of (subject to some “democratic process”, or what have you). How often have we heard that we live in a nanny state? It continues and gets worse so long as we ask the “parent” / “government” to legalize raw milk.
        When I, and you, and you and you, etc. (as individuals) see ourselves as individuals, and not as a “group” (large or small) and see that, now that we are mature enough to take responsibility, we can do so. When we don’t see ourselves as “the public”, start thinking for ourselves and take personal responsibility, we are inherently out of the public and into the private. It is a switch in the mindset. Not a required modification at law.
        The onus falls on us to show the court that we have made the switch, and then call upon the court to tell the nanny (the gov) to back off, for we are no longer the subject of that nanny… They no longer have jurisdiction, for we are no longer operating under the notion of privileges, but our birth rights.
        As such, I do not believe “the Government” is out of bounds by regulating public affairs. That is, in deed, it’s inherent function… To protect those who cannot, or don’t want to take care of themselves… There are plenty of people out there who are wholly incompetent, and require a nanny.
        Politically I believe we, as a society, would be much further ahead if the function of government was explicitly limited, (re: US constitution). But alas, it isn’t so in Canada. I find it futile to resist what is. I rather call it out for what it is, and then state what is wanted…
        PS – Your “applause” is not particularly becoming. To be frank, it comes off as childish, which implies you may still need a nanny…😉

  12. Topic: The Risks and Possibilities of Unpasteurized Milk: Opening the Dialogue-20120604 1601-1
    Recording date: Monday, June 4, 2012 12:01 pm
    Eastern Daylight Time (Indiana, GMT-04:00)
    Panelist Information:
    Duration: 1 hour 56 minutes
    … Here it is folks and hopefully they will post it on Youtube like they did with the Harvard Raw Milk Debate .

    https://sustainontario.webex.com/ec0606l/eventcenter/recording/recordAction.do?theAction=poprecord&AT=pb&isurlact=true&renewticket=0&recordID=5321432&apiname=lsr.php&rKey=b711fc9f68bbfd31&needFilter=false&format=short&&SP=EC&rID=5321432&siteurl=sustainontario&actappname=ec0606l&actname=%2Feventcenter%2Fframe%2Fg.do&rnd=5093692177&entappname=url0108l&entactname=%2FnbrRecordingURL.do

  13. Carol

    Jan, I find your comment,”Raw milk destined for pasteurization is “different” precisely because it is destined for pasteurization. You can get away with lots of things if you know any bad things will be killed before victims’ lawyers have a shot at you” I find this comment extremely insulting. I would pit my bacteria count against yours any day. I was for clarification sake referring to the milk of the average Dairy Farmer who must by law have quota and have his/her milk sent to be pasteurized. If they would also be able to sell their milk at the farm gate the milk would be no different then your “Cow Share” milk and some may even surpass the quality. Jan, I happen to know some of the results of testing done by some of the Cow Share cows and we have never had such hi tests so I would suggest that we stick to facts. Your milk also if pooled with other farmers not “dairys” as you referred could also be problematic because of a cow that may have a problem that you did not catch.Thats life, nothing is perfect. I am trying to compare apples to apples which is milk sold at the farm gate by farmers who also ship their milk for pasteurization along with “cow Share” farmers and believe it or not Jan the majority of milk obtained “raw” is from quota holding farmers.

    • Gordon S Watson

      2nd reply to Carol as of July 4th

      Carol

      I knew that bit about “getting mud on your boots”, would get’cha. Now I know a couple more things : you are indeed a quota farmer, and you have read the Schmidt case. Once you educate you-self as to why REAL MILK is so much more desirable, then you’ll appreciate why it costs more than the stuff on store shelves, labeled “homo milk”

      What I didn’t have time to put in to my initial response to your query, is, that when raw milk leaves the CAFO *, it may be pretty good stuff. What quota-holders don’t want to think about, is ; that, going through the factory, homo milk is adulterated / so badly brutalized and otherwise de-natured that, to call it “milk” is false advertising. * confined animal feeding operation

      I could go on about how the process destroys the food value. In his book Whitewash, Joseph Keon exhaustively makes the case that homo milk is actually dangerous. I condemn the quality of milk produced by CAFOs, partly, because in the Cornell University study one-quarter of the samples taken from bulk tanks on commercial dairy farms, contained pathogens. FDA Commissioner Sheehan is correct on that point, vis, ‘drinking raw milk (from a farm in the industrial-ag. Industry) is like playing Russian Roulette with your health’. But I don’t argue your farm may be the exceptionr

      Like so many good little practicing communists in the dairy supply system ( whose self-image is as law-abiding Xians) you prefer to use the law of the land as your ethical guide. Then out of the other side of your mouth, you admit your morals permit you to sell something you don’t own = that’d be, raw milk produced by cows caught by that Stalin-ist system. Saying that “the milk is not owned by the system”, you are dead wrong. I urge you to get you-self some good legal advice before you sell another pint of something you do not own. Read the contract you have with the Milk Marketing Board. The MMB is very jealous of its property. You’re only a little cog in Karl Marx’s Great Big Machine. The first plank in his Communist Manifesto was = elimination of private property.

      You say you’d be happy to milk a cow if someone were to purchase it. The reason you could get away with that, at all, is because Michael Schmidt “broke the law” as a way to raise public consciousness, as to its absurdity

      You say that some cowshare operations don’t have milking equipment and bulk tanks. If you can find someone hand-milking, they’d be the exception. And even then, hand-milking can be done perfectly safely, if the Agister is conscientious. As for bulk tanks ; there’s the start of your problem. One of the reasons raw milk farmers get the high price is, because the milk flows through the milking procedure so that, within half an hour of coming out of the cow, it’s in a glass jar in the cooler. Also ; mingling the milk from 1000s of cows on CAFOs, is just asking for trouble. Milk from our cowshare is in the hands of its owners, within 2 days. According to the law you like so much, “homo milk” can sit on the shelf for up to 30 days … which is better?

      You fault me that “all is not perfection”…. I certainly don’t say that. My 15 years’ experience in this political movement tells me that we’re re-learning how to feed ourselves properly, after 2 generations of being dumbed-down in all aspects of national consciousness. [snip]

  14. Here is a new and tiny URL for easy forwarding of the June 4, 2012 Sustain Ontario (www.sustainontario.com ) webinar video link http://tinyurl.com/ckd9699 . Please forward to all who may benefit from this work .

  15. Pingback: Margo McIntosh on this week’s Debate about Raw Milk « Sustain Ontario

  16. nedlud

    My sense from reading all this ‘jargon’ and ‘debate’ is that more citified people need to go hungrier for longer. A lot longer!

    Then after that, maybe more of you will be inclined to get off your damn fat butts and out of your pristine ivory towers and away from your computers and iphones and do the actual work and produce more of your own damn food yourselves!

    signed,
    a farmer who has seen the world getting worse and worse and worse, as it loses honest farmers and local honest support businesses and enterprises, they are a simultaneous phenomenon….and all this came after we genocided (laid waste to and destroyed, utterly) all other cultures and human systems leaving us with this industrial radioactive sewer pit of a planet…do you get it??? ???

    I am sick of it.

    .

    • I can’t say I disagree completely in principle and I feel your frustration. I’d add that perhaps more “citified”, as you call them, folks need to “get off your damn fat butts and out of your pristine ivory towers and away from your computers and iphones and do the actual work” (quoted and now my addition) of creating change in the food system. I’d add to that though “country folk” as well because many who live in the country and small rural towns, are no more involved in where their food comes from than people in the city and they have even less excuse since the farmers that could supply them are all around them. I’d also like to add that it’s the “city folk” who are working to improve the ability of everyone to access real food. One example of that is Sustain Ontario. Without their hard work and initiatives on behalf of both farmers and consumers, we wouldn’t have accomplished so much in the real food movement. Really check out their website and see the impact they are having on the food system. It’s inspiring…..

      • nedlud

        Thanks.

        You are right, there are some city people doing good things or at least trying to. And there are some really bad farmers out there. No question about it.

        The problem is, we are running out of time, in so many ways.

        I do not believe we can avoid planetary catastrophe, so in a very real sense, all discussions and ‘activisms’ are moot.

        Hopefully, I’m wrong on that, but discussions and ‘activisms’ have been going on for years and the power and control of the earth, it’s inhabitants and the gross and perverse mismanagement of same by elites (uber-wealthy techno-fascists) continues to multiply at breakaway speed.

        I do not think you appreciate enough the technologies that are being developed and utilized by these ‘elites’, even as the earth metastasizes.

        nedlud

    • BC Food Security

      The challenge here with certain hyper-aggressive and so-called ‘ Human Right’s ‘ bloggers is that they appear to jinx the general discussion sometimes around the topic at hand and/or chase away the people , or worse experts in the field , who would sincerely like to talk and share their wisdom about food and farming and perhaps also develop joint Food Security Activism Strategies together. One also never really knows if this “Bull in a China shop ” insensitivity is genetic to the person or intentional i.e an act of deliberate sabotage emanating from some corporation, dairy board or government ministry so as to waylay the focus before some form of focused and constructive activism emerges .

      • nedlud

        I have a bull. He weighs about 1500 lbs. He is genetically predisposed to being that way–LARGE and POWERFUL. I get along much better with him, our cows and my honest country neighbors/farm folk (though such neighbors are dwindling and being replaced each year, by idiots/clones from the city and suburbs) than I do with bureaucrats and their ‘genetic’ endowments which include: greed, emotional insensitivity, pathological lying and cheating and various other symptoms of severe socio/psychopathy.

        Good luck with your discussions. STAY CALM.

  17. BC food security, you have not even begun to see aggressive, if that comment was meant to include me in the net that you broadcast. As another poster recently said. “I am not here to catch flies.” And sugar is not in my tool kit – but the truth is.

    Pray what tell is jinxing a discussion? Are you referring, as many Statist do, to any opinion that does not fit into your world paradigm, as offensive?
    You believe that diversity is people that dress differently?
    NOT someone with different ideas. And you welcome diversity.

    If someone is so thin skinned as to be chased away by someone presenting their ideas and facts, perhaps forcefully, then they have more issues than I care to address here. They sure as heck are not going to learn much in life with that kind of outlook — and it shows.

    You said:
    “…i.e an act of deliberate sabotage emanating from some corporation, dairy board or government ministry…”

    What kind of Orwelllian dribble/double speak and just lousy ill thought out logic is that?

    Sure the government & corporations are posting here preaching freedom. They are trying to do their dardest to convince you that they are illegitimate and should not exist. That’s what I would do if i were the government and a corporation.

    Now seriously….
    The exact opposite would make much more sense. If I were the government I would make posts claiming how important the functions of government are. How they protect you. How we could not live without them…. Come to think of it – a lot like most of the posts that show up here.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s