Freedom of choice

[annmarie]

Actually they weren't breaking the law originally, but the state regulators have been after them and a few other dairy farmers for a while now and they must have closed the loophole. The law in NY is that raw milk can only be consumed from your own cows, and you are not allowed to distribute that raw milk to anyone else. So this couple has a dairy farm in Ithaca, which is a college town loaded with the free-range, organic, all natural types with money, and here’s these poor dairy farmers with a product (raw milk) that lots of people want to give them money for, that they can’t sell except to creameries who want to pay 1/20th of what the local people are willing to pay. So the solution was to allow people to buy a share of a cow, and by doing this, they can legally distribute milk to the cow “owner” since it’s legally their cow. It’s been going on for quite a while and it really wasn’t illegal, just a clever little loophole, but it appears they must have finally amended the law somehow to now make it illegal. Most likely it started out small and the popularity spread and started freaking out the officials in Albany. I’m sure the next step will be to now work on changing the law. I wish them luck, NY is borderline psychotic with its rules and regulations. One of the things I don’t miss about that state!

 

[ivan3]

I'll just preface this by saying that, as a little kid, I'd help my grandfather with his milking when we'd go to visit in the summer. We'd strain out the flies and whatnot and then drink up (still alive and kicking).

Here, in Missouri, the milk board is trying to engage in a little bureaucratic jujitsu to clamp down on distribution, but they lack the leverage to `tip it over and pour it out'.

http://www.ftcldf.org/aa-09apr2008.htm

If I was distributing I'd be far more worried that the `herdshare' would devolve into a `class' `taking action' (kill all lawyers first):

http://www.pritzkerlaw.com/campylobacter/hendricks-farm-campylobacter.html

Illegal drug dealers might have to concern themselves with dissatified customers returning to perform quality assurance by shooting them. They don't have to worry about lawsuits from same, however.

The GAM FDA's page on raw milk: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2004/504_milk.html

 

[Rosalind]

Agree with whomever said they should work to change the law rather than circumvent it. With 120 paying customers and various other farms doing similar, I should think they've got a reasonable shot at changing the law, no?

I don't have ANY problems with food producers being open to inspection and seizure of goods 24/7. I realize no one is left alive to remember the original Swill Milk issues in the early 1900s--basically, dairies who wanted to make a quick buck and sell spoiled milk would water the milk down and add formaldehyde to preserve it. For logistics reasons, the watery formaldehyde-tainted milk was all that was for sale in large cities. Many, many people, especially children, got sick and died as a result. Absolutely nothing would have been done about it had certain public health inspectors of the time not been really, really enthusiastic about their jobs.

Lots of manufacturers would greatly prefer that nobody at all ever see or inspect their operations, and unfortunately there are many unethical buggers out there who happily WOULD poison people for a buck if they thought they wouldn't get caught. Look at all the lousy products coming out of China--sometimes there is no way for a consumer to tell quality on their own.

Disclaimer: I work for Big Pharma. I have been through public health and FDA inspections, even when I worked for small startup companies. It's a cost of doing business, you deal with it like any other cost.

 

[kstaven]

Quote:
What you suggest has been tried and the Dairy board lobbied to stop it from happening because direct distribution means they don't get a cut of the action and can't control it.

If you wish I have a 100+ page transcript of one of the more recent attempts.

If you look at the full past history of the LLC in the arcticle they have lobbied for inspection and standards to legalize sales like California does.

What I do find interesting is that the OWNERS of the herd are being told they can't consume milk from their own cows despite current and unchanged laws in the state that still allow this.

 

[kstaven]

As a further example I would submit changes to meat regulations in many areas that:

1. Make it illegal to raise a meat animal and give away or share with family or friends any part of it.

2. Make it illegal to cook said meat in your own home and serve it to anyone who does not live on said property.

3. Make it illegal to consume said meat off your own property. For example: If you make a chicken sandwich and take it to work you are violating the regulations and subject to large fines and possible prison time. Your sandwich is a public health risk by the letter of the law.

Many here would likely to be very surprised if they looked into the laws that exist where they live and proposed changes that exist in many states.

 

[the1much]

Quote:
with #1 here in texas we can sell 10,000 processed birds without inspection,,,,,, #2 is like that here,, i was gonna start a BBQ take out here,, i have HUNDREDS of people who want me too,,,but i have to prepare EVERYTHING in its own building,, am NOT allowed to prepare it in my kitchen, then serve it,, then ya get into all the things that "other" building needs.

 

[PurpleChicken]

We have too many laws, too many lawyers, too many politicians who have
nothing better to do than pass laws, too many special interest groups
that promote or lobby for these laws, and too many stupid people.

So many people to cull, so little time.

 

[joebryant]

The "judges" in Indiana are much worse than just a "bad joke". They're nothing more than front-line guards of their political bosses' campaign funds and the funders who can buy special dispensations from any law and protection from anyone who's damaged by their shenanigans. The whole "system" is more corrupt, evil, and dangerous than anything or anybody who could be brought into it to be "judged".
When I'm called for jury duty, I always tell them that I wouldn't find a murdering rapist who's a Russian spy who robbed the Chase-Manhattan guilty in an Indiana court. I've never been on a jury, and I DO NOT have a "civic duty" to do anything to make the "judges"' jobs or their theaters of political farce appear fit to exist.

 

[Reinbeau]

When laws are written under the guise of 'protecting the public', but they're really to protect someone else's bottom line, I have little problem with those who try to find a way around it - because they no doubt don't have the resources (nor will they ever) to get the laws changed.

Quote:
So it's ok for them to change the law to make it even harder to raise and harvest our own food? I think not!

KStevens illustrates my point very eloquently- this is the way things could go if you let those who make the laws continue to protect those who make the most money:

Quote:
And PC's take on it is priceless - I totally agree!

Quote:

 

[kinnip]

There's a great scene in "Serenity" where the preacher says "A government is a body of men usually, notably ungoverned."