Fundamental right to any food?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: Fundamental right to any food?

  1. #1
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default Fundamental right to any food?

    WI judge declares that individuals have no fundamental right to own cows, drink raw milk
    (NaturalNews) After being petitioned for clarification about his decision in a recent legal case involving individuals freedom to consume raw milk and own "shares" of dairy cows, Judge Patrick J. Fiedler vehemently declared that individuals "do not have a fundamental right to consume the foods of their choice," and essentially reiterated his state's position that raw milk is simply off limits.

    The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), on behalf of Zinniker Family Farm in Elkhorn, Wi., and several other farms, filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) back on Feb. 25, 2010, asking it to clarify its interpretation of the law in regards to raw milk (http://www.ftcldf.org/litigation-wi...).

    Wisconsin is among the most restrictive US states as far as raw milk is concerned. Raw milk sales to consumers are prohibited -- but private cow share agreements in which individuals purchase "shares" of their own cows, are exempted. However, due to the onslaught of raids in recent years against raw dairies, private raw milk buying clubs, and even raw milk cow share programs, the plaintiffs simply wanted to clarify Wisconsin's stance concerning these alternate forms of accessing raw milk.

    And they got their answer. According to a recent report by The Complete Patient, Judge Fiedler believes that no individual has a "fundamental right" to consume any food without government permission. Even though the Ninth Amendment to the US Constitution establishes that the government has no business interfering in the affairs of individuals outside of what has been specifically enumerated to it, which, of course, includes freedom of food choice, Judge Fiedler apparently believes otherwise.

    To summarize Judge Fiedler's response, which was obviously written in an arrogant and condescending tone, individuals have no fundamental right to own or use dairy cows, to consume the milk from their own cows, to board their cows off their own property, or even to produce and consume the foods of their own choice, period.

    You can read Judge Fiedler's entire disturbing response here:
    http://www.thecompletepatient.com/s...

    Groups like FTCLDF will continue to challenge such illegal and unconstitutional restrictions against raw milk, particularly in individual states like Wisconsin where officials have illegally prohibited it. But individuals that value this priceless freedom must also also stand up and resist Big Brother's concerted assault against food freedom, no matter form it may take.


    Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033727_fo...#ixzz1ZMH5vPoE
    This is a huge issue here as raw milk is popular here in PA. In NJ it is illegal. Farmers "smuggle" it over the border and can get in a lot of trouble. Do you believe that we as individuals have the right to consume whatever foods we choose? Do you believe that the state has the right to mandate that (informed) consumers be legally banned from drinking.....milk?

  2. #2
    Posting Addict KimPossible's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    20,341

    Default

    Interesting to me. Because i think of all the things in my house that i have purchased and could theoretically eat because i now own it and are a lot worse than raw milk and were never meant to be eaten.

    I think they just need to bottle it with a large label that says "Not for Consumption"



    In all seriousness.....i don't actually know how i feel. I could imagine a time and place where it would be appropriate for the government to make such a rule. But in this case....it seems really grey to me. Lots of people drink raw milk, why cant' they just require some sort of warning of the risks?

    I mean...if we can smoke cigarettes with warnings on the boxes, why can't they sell milk with warnings? I don't see why its necessary to ban it completely.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,570

    Default

    I understand *why* the government wants to ban the sale of raw milk. That's because we expect the food we eat to be safe, and we have charged the government with ensuring that. And the only way to ensure that milk is safe is to pasteurize it. I get that. But we can also buy & consume all kinds of other things (beer, wine, cough medicine) legally that can be harmful but we label them appropriately, and in some cases limit their sale to adults. We can also buy things that are widely known to be very susceptable to contamination & that have a history of routinely making people sick or killing them (strawberries & bean sprouts) and they aren't labeled, we just deal with it if something happens. It's a "buyer beware" kind of thing.

    What they need to do is legislate that raw milk be labeled properly with some kind of warning ("Drinking unpasteurized milk can lead to illness or death") so that no one accidentally buys it instead of pasteurized milk. And then let consumers make an educated decisions about which milk to buy and what they put into their own bodies.

    They also need to do away with government subsidies of the dairy industry, which is probably what is triggering this issue in another way. Probably the dairies that conform to regulation in order to get subsidies, are seeing competition from the raw milk dairies. Since they can't switch to raw milk without losing a subsidy, the other option is to try to drive out the raw milk dairies.
    Last edited by Spacers; 09-29-2011 at 01:15 PM.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,825

    Default

    So with both of your proposals, would it need to include on the label "not for children under the age of 18" like they do for cigarettes, etc?
    Tracey

    DD: 7/27/08
    DD Twins: 8/4/09 @ 35 Wks - No NICU, woot!
    7/9/07

  5. #5
    Posting Addict boilermaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Rocky Mtns.
    Posts
    19,380

    Default

    It is legal here-- but when we were "home" in Indiana this summer we bought some there. The dairy had to place a sticker on it that said "not for human consumption"-- use a kitten or puppy feed-- it was so weird to me. Yet people would come in and buy three gallons of it....

    I think it should be legal and monitored. Here they "approve" raw dairies and they must adhere to cleaning and storage standards-- seems like a good compromise to me.
    Audra
    DH Trey
    DD 8.03, DD 6.05, DS 3.07, DD 5.09, and DS arrived 6.17.12
    www.mamaginger.com

  6. #6
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,764

    Default

    I must live under a rock. I have never heard of not being aloud to drink raw milk. Growing up we used to go to the Amish and buy it straight from the cow.

    ~Bonita~

  7. #7
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    In Canada raw milk can't be sold or distributed but I believe people still have the right to consume what they want. Meaning if they own the cow they have every right to drink its milk. You can't give it to anyone else, but if it's for you there's no prohibition.

    I do not agree whatsoever with banning the consumption of raw milk from your own cows, which is what this judge has done.
    Lisa


  8. #8
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,543

    Default

    People should be able to eat whatever they choose. I'm alright with labels regarding known risks, and would be supportive of that.

    We've got two heifers of our own and will be drinking raw milk next winter, if all goes according to plan and they have babies on schedule

  9. #9
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Claire'sMommy View Post
    In Canada raw milk can't be sold or distributed but I believe people still have the right to consume what they want. Meaning if they own the cow they have every right to drink its milk. You can't give it to anyone else, but if it's for you there's no prohibition.

    I do not agree whatsoever with banning the consumption of raw milk from your own cows, which is what this judge has done.
    Why don't those of us who live in apartments or who live in an area that prohibits livestock get to enjoy the benefits of raw milk if we want to take the risk of drinking it? Why does the government get to tell me what food I can or cannot put into my own body?

    (ETA: this is all theoretical for me. I hate milk. I only use it for cooking, and I only put enough on my cereal to soften it a bit. I get a squirrelly tummy just pouring it for my kids to drink.)
    Last edited by Spacers; 09-29-2011 at 04:35 PM.
    The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!

  10. #10
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    Why don't those of us who live in apartments or who live in an area that prohibits livestock get to enjoy the benefits of raw milk if we want to take the risk of drinking it? Why does the government get to tell me what food I can or cannot put into my own body?

    (ETA: this is all theoretical for me. I hate milk. I only use it for cooking, and I only put enough on my cereal to soften it a bit. I get a squirrelly tummy just pouring it for my kids to drink.)
    Up till now the govt kind of skirted the issue of people drinking the milk by eliminating the sale and distribution. Make one thing illegal and the other kind of takes care of itself, KWIM? It's like it's not illegal to smoke pot, it's just illegal to be in possession of it, or sell it. So, how does one actually smoke pot without being in possession of it? Same sort of idea with the milk, I guess (although I'm pretty certain you can be in possession of raw milk ).

    Also, from a liability standpoint I can kind of get why the sale/distribution is illegal. Can you imagine how many people would turn around and try to sue the FDA or CFIA because they got sick from raw milk even WITH big disclaimers on the milk cartons?
    Lisa


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions