Tag Archives: Milk Act

4. What is the meaning of the word “plant” in the Milk Act?

Michael Schmidt raises a glass of the good stuff.

Thursday July 26th at 9:30 am, Michael Schmidt, his Canadian Constitution Foundation lawyer Karen Selick, and citizens concerned about raw milk and food freedom will converge at Osgoode Hall in Toronto for the occasion of Michael’s request for leave to appeal his convictions relating to raw milk. (More details at the end.) As with yesterday’s word “distribute”, much hinges on the special definitions given to ordinary words when used in the context of one law or another. From the Applicant’s Factum:

  • The Milk Act prohibits operating a “plant” without a licence, and defines “plant” as “a cream transfer station, a milk transfer station or premises in which milk or cream or milk products are processed.”
  • The Milk Act then defines “processing” as follows: Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Michael Schmidt’s statement regarding actions by Fraser Health re “Our Cows” raw milk cowshare in Chilliwack B.C.

Photo of one of the cows from the "Our Cows" raw milk cowshare in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Thanks to Hella D for the photo. Click image above to go to Hella's post with more such photos.

Statement regarding the Raw milk farm search by health authorities in BC [by Michael Schmidt, who is the agister for “Our Cows”]:

Fraser Health followed exactly my suggestion which I made last year to Tim Chum who is head of enforcement at Fraser Health in BC. Continue reading


Filed under News

Key legal points in the recent Ontario Regine v. Schmidt raw milk judgment

Many thanks to an anonymous academic researcher who contributed a helpful analysis of historical material which clarified the meaning and intent of the province of Ontario’s 1938 and subsequent milk pasteurization legislation. This research provided useful perspective in developing a successful legal defence against charges arising from the 2006 raid on Glencolton Farms. What follows is a summary of a few of the significant legal points arising from the judgement that was handed down January 21st in that case:

Michael Schmidt's wife Elisa, and son William, become the focus for media attention once news of the not-guilty verdict begiins to filter out of the courtroom on Thursday January 21, around noon.

On 21 January 2010 the court in Regina versus Schmidt held that Michael Schmidt,

* a qualified expert bio-dynamic farmer (praised by the court as a forthcoming and reliable witness who had been described in those terms, and was recognised as an expert witness, by the Health Protection Appeal Board, in its ruling  against him in 1994), who Continue reading

Leave a comment

Filed under News

Sheep milk not covered by Milk Act?

Here’s an edited version of a recent email from Gordon Watson from British Columbia:

Photo from Crane Creek East Friesian Dairy Sheep in Iowa.

Photo from Crane Creek East Friesian Dairy Sheep in Iowa.

I am very happy to hear that the Dykes are thinking about producing sheep’s milk for the Vancouver market.  I will help them in every way, to get something going with it. In the Milk Industry Act the term  “cattle”, milk from which is caught by the Act, is defined as bovine and caprine = cows and goats.   Thus, sheep are categorically EXcluded from the laws to do with raw milk for human consumption.

For Home on the Range to offer sheep milk for sale = NOT via a share in the flock is the ideal way for making the point that dairying to obtain REAL MILK can be done safely.   As long as you keep all the paperwork in order ( more or less! ) with the shareholders in the herd, there is nothing to prevent you simply brokering the sheep milk. Continue reading


Filed under News