In case you haven’t noticed already, the recent raw milk documentary which aired Monday March 28th, is now online for anyone to look at, anytime. Not sure how long it will be up there, so if you haven’t seen it yet, why not take a look to see what the TVO folks have made of the present raw milk situation in Ontario. Watch it here.
TVO’s description of the 15 minute raw milk mini-documentary is as follows:
“Health officials in Ontario say raw milk isn’t safe for human consumption and therefore it is illegal. Some people though, will go far to get milk that is not pasteurized. Ontario dairy farmer Michael Schmidt has been locked in a legal battle over raw milk for more than two decades. This video looks at the debate over raw milk.”
Also notable is the opportunity for comments. So far there have been two comments posted. Here’s one of them, from Kevin Moynagh:
“Interesting video. What the “experts” fail to mention is that Louis Pasteur himself said that pasteurization was not the proper solution, but the process the milk was produced with. The unhygienic milking conditions, the way the milk was stored, the feed given to the cattle, these are all bigger problems. Unhealthy cows produce unhealthy milk. Today we have better, cleaner milking procedures’ stainless steel, refrigerated storage. Both eliminate a lot of the problems that existed when pasteurization was brought into the picture. But the conventional dairy industry still feeds cattle with grains (and who knows what pharmaceuticals), which lead to unhealthy cows, therefore unhealthy milk.
What is needed is an understanding of what conditions need to exist to allow for healthy milk, milk that does not need to be pasteurized. Michael Schmidt, Mark McAfee and others understand this, and what to work with the government to set up these regulations. But the bureaucrats, who claim to be interested in public safety, are completely closed minded. They have their answer, end of discussion. Well, they have my name as well (I am one of the farm share members), but they have never bothered to contact me to express their concern. Wonder why?
If they spent just 10% of their effort to harass Michael, into working together to regulate raw milk, this would already be a done deal.
We are not asking to sell it in stores, but to regulate it for people who want to make an informed decision and be “allowed” to enter into a contract directly with a farmer. Why does this threaten them so? I wished I knew the answer, but clearly it is not the “science” they say is on their side.
The video brings up 2 cases of illness (interestingly, kind of glossed over the fact that not all had consumed raw milk), but not the conditions the raw milk was produced in. Yes, these underground operations can be dangerous, which is why we want the brought out in the open and regulations in place. But the answer seems to be to ban it. Well, better start banning spinach, Costco chicken salad, Chipotle, ground beef, lettuce and Maple Leaf foods.”
The Bovine 
Great comment, Kevin!
Re: ‘Why does this threaten them so?” I think I understand. You already have one of the keys here with private contracts.
This issue most largely concerns the limits of governmental jurisdiction and much more so than it actually concerns the public safety. Private contracts are generally outside of the public domain and therefore not truly a “public safety” issue. However, if the jurisdiction issue is not properly addressed (by directly questioning the authorities at each and every encounter) then government assumes that the people are voluntarily submitting to the “supremacy” of the government. Therefore the perceived “protests” of the regulated health and safety procedures are simply rebuffed and the resistance to complying automatically becomes a target for punitive actions. That is all in the government’s favor. Based on the long standing history of this issue that condition may very well continue, but it doesn’t have to!
I believe that the strategy deserves to be reviewed. Consider having a single focus on one thing: challenging the jurisdiction by questioning the authority. Where in Canadian Law does government have the unbridled Right to impair the obligation of contracts? If there is no Law to support government in interfering with private contacts than that fact needs to be squarely brought to government’s notice. Then any government agents who act contrary to the unrefuted truth (of the duly challenged jurisdiction) should be held liable for each and every trespass. Then I believe the governments attitude will change.
These tyrannical socialist bastards think that you have to ask their permission to exercise your rights.