Farmers denied the right to consume milk from their own cow

  • Get FREE 5 Gifts with Orders $59+

Farmers denied the right to consume milk from their own cow

wetone123 wetone123
Farmers (and Consumers) Denied the Right to Consume Milk from Their Own Cows

Wisconsin judge goes further and rules that none of us—farmers or consumers—have the right to decide what we have for our own dinner. A state Action Alert!


Last week, Wisconsin judge Patrick J. Fiedler ruled against the property rights of cow owners and their right to consume raw milk from their own cows. Plaintiffs included Galyle Loiselle and Robert Karp, who boarded their cows at Mark and Petra Zinniker’s farm so that they could consume raw milk from them, and the Zinnikers. Here is what the judge said in his own words:


Plaintiffs [Loiselle, Karp, and the Zinnikers] do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;

Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;

Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer; [and]
Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.

It would certainly seem that the judge’s ruling violates constitutional rights to property, private contract, and bodily autonomy. After all, is there a more fundamental right than deciding what to eat?

(Before this, I thought the FDA’s contempt for freedom of food choice was bad enough!)


Why is there so much government involvement going on with the milk?
10/05/2011
  • Buy 3 Items for $70
  • Buy 3 Items for $50
  • Buy 3 Items for $30
  • Save 20% on Luxury Toys
  • Add Some Buzz To Your Favourite Toy & Save 60% On Kit
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
All promotions
ss143 ss143
I have no clue . Its as if the government wants to interfere and deem what we can and cant do in any aspect of our lives.
10/05/2011
alliegator alliegator
I totally get restricting milk if it's being sold, but I don't get how they could restrict owners drinking it.
10/05/2011
Miss Morphine Miss Morphine
Quote:
Originally posted by alliegator
I totally get restricting milk if it's being sold, but I don't get how they could restrict owners drinking it.
That's the part I don't understand either.
10/06/2011
Errant Venture Errant Venture
You've links for this?
10/07/2011
Shellz31 Shellz31
How dumb is that!
Totally sux that the government has complete control. I hate that. There's no such thing as freedom any more!
10/07/2011
Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by wetone123
Farmers (and Consumers) Denied the Right to Consume Milk from Their Own Cows

Wisconsin judge goes further and rules that none of us—farmers or consumers—have the right to decide what we have for our own dinner. A state Action ...
(I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv, so take my post with a grain of salt.)

What your summary fails to make clear is that the decisions are based on the plaintiffs failure to provide evidence that they have a "fundamental right" to the items listed. The judge is not saying that they don't, but without appropriate evidence provided to the court, the court can not provide judgement. Their argument was basically grounded on citing various laws (Roe v. Wade for example) and saying "this proves we have a fundamental right to grow and consume the food of our choice," without connecting the dots. How does a woman's right to have an abortion equate to our right to consume any food we choose?

Additionally, the case involves cows being boarded at a dairy farm that produces milk for consumption. As such, the farm falls under the laws that govern a dairy farm. Any milk produced at the farm is also subject to the same laws. Even if the cows belonged to someone else and the milk was for their personal consumption, the farm is distributing the milk and it is illegal to do so raw.
10/07/2011
unfulfilled unfulfilled
The government always is looking for a way to control us! You can't distribute raw milk, but you can drink raw milk.
10/07/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
(I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on tv, so take my post with a grain of salt.)

What your summary fails to make clear is that the decisions are based on the plaintiffs failure to provide evidence that they have a "fundamental ...
You mean we don't have a fundemental right to grow and consume the food of our choice? I didn't know we had turned into Nazi Germany ...yet. I guess the day is coming...
10/08/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Errant Venture
You've links for this?
(link)


(link)


(link)


Sorry it took me so long to post back...I have been really sick the past 2 days. Seems that my pharmacy changed hands. The old pharmacy gave me old, out of date medicine and it felt like death for awhile. The new owners took the medicine back, admitted that it was old, (they smelled it) it smelt of vinegar. Too bad I'm not in the habit of smelling my medicines. They refilled my prescription. Since the other owners are out of business nothing can be done for it.

Ironic ain't it?
10/08/2011
Errant Venture Errant Venture
Indeed. Sorry to hear you're ill. Hope the new meds bring you back to good health soon. I'll take a look at these links later.
10/08/2011
Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by wetone123
You mean we don't have a fundemental right to grow and consume the food of our choice? I didn't know we had turned into Nazi Germany ...yet. I guess the day is coming...
That's not what I said, nor is that the intent of the decision. The plaintiffs claim that we have a "fundamental right to grow and consume our own food" but did not argue that point successfully in court. There is currently no law or prior judgement that has said we do have this "fundamental right," that's why the judgement reads "The plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to..." Read the court summary rather than another person's biased interpretation of the situation. link

It would be the equivalent of my claiming that I have the fundamental right to pee in my pants by citing that women have the right to an abortion. While I may have that right, citing Roe v Wade does not support that argument. It does not mean I can not pee in my pants, but that it is not a fundamental right and I ave failed to demonstrate that it is a fundamental right.
10/08/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
That's not what I said, nor is that the intent of the decision. The plaintiffs claim that we have a "fundamental right to grow and consume our own food" but did not argue that point successfully in court. There is currently no law or ...
I know that's not what you said. It's what I said. You are going for the legal aspect and I am for the human aspect. In the human aspect, with the number of people starving and on food stamps here in America, government should be glad people are trying to raise and grow their own food. Instead they are arresting them! Does it make sense?

I have read said document and have not changed my mind, except for 1 thing; they should have gotten a better lawyer. Of course, they probably couldn't afford someone who could take on such a mass of writhing snakes. It's madness! I'm almost positive you know all of this.?

By the way, you never actually came directly out and said...do you agree with the legal or human aspect of the story?
10/08/2011
Sex'и'Violence Sex'и'Violence
That's such bullshit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking raw milk, the gov just wants to make sure they can pump you full of their chemicals.
10/08/2011
Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by wetone123
I know that's not what you said. It's what I said. You are going for the legal aspect and I am for the human aspect. In the human aspect, with the number of people starving and on food stamps here in America, government should be glad people ...
The article you reference is misleading. I was simply trying to provide the facts of the case. This has nothing to do with whether or not people have this fundamental right. The law currently does not recognize this as a fundamental right. The court would if they properly argued the case. Do I believe that people have the inherent right to grow/raise and consume their own food? Yes I do, but that is not what the legal case is about. The legal case is simple:

1. There is no law that currently states we have a fundamental right to grow/consume whatever food we choose. (This does not mean we don't have that right)
2. You can not simply claim in a court of law that we have this fundamental right without supporting said argument.
3. The plaintiffs failed to support the argument, therefore the court ruled that based on their flawed argument, we do not have the fundamental right.

Additionally, as I said before, these people are keeping their cows on a commercial dairy farm, so yes I think they should abide by the laws that apply to the farm. It would not be an issue if they raised the cows on their own property for their own use which is what the title of the article is trying to claim. A more accurate title would be "Farmers (and consumers) Denied the Right to Consume Milk from Their Own Cows When Raised on a Commercial Dairy Farm Because They Failed to Demonstrate in a Court of Law That They Have a Fundamental Right to Consume Milk From Their Own Cows, Therefore the Laws That Currently Apply to the Commercial Dairy Farm Apply to the Milk Produced From Their Cows."

And claiming that they could not afford good representation is a poor excuse. I also doubt they could not afford good counsel since the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund (link) was also a plaintiff. I'm no lawyer and I can tell that citing Roe v Wade is a flawed argument.

I think we simply have to agree to disagree on this issue.
10/08/2011
Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by Sex'и'Violence
That's such bullshit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking raw milk, the gov just wants to make sure they can pump you full of their chemicals.
The fact that milk is raw does not mean their are no chemicals or hormones. There is a huge difference. In fact, laws regulating milk limit the amount of drugs and hormones allowed to protect the public. It's the farmer, not the government, that injects cows with drugs/hormones to produce more milk. Raw milk implies that the milk has not been pasteurized, a method to heat and kill bacteria in the milk so that it lasts longer before spoiling.
10/08/2011
Antipova Antipova
I so wish raw milk was legal! Yes, there are bacterial concerns... but I'm not a baby and I'm not elderly, so I would likely recover from campylobacter or other problems.

And it would the taste would be so greatly improved. I keep a few mesophilic cultures in my freezer to add to milks and cheeses for better flavor (and if I wasn't so lazy, I'd do butter too) and they taste so much better! Old milk becomes buttermilk instead of spoiling. It's legal in France.

I think that the government should have no say in whether or not I am allowed to drink raw milk. I could see mandated "THIS HAS NOT BEEN PASTEURIZED" labeling. I could see assisted-living homes or nursing homes not allowing raw milk. But I am a sane consenting adult and I want my bacteria back!
10/08/2011
Kindred Kindred
Quote:
Originally posted by Antipova
I so wish raw milk was legal! Yes, there are bacterial concerns... but I'm not a baby and I'm not elderly, so I would likely recover from campylobacter or other problems.

And it would the taste would be so greatly improved. I keep a ...
Raw milk is legal in some states: link

And again, the law does not prohibit you from drinking raw milk. The law prohibits the commercial distribution of raw milk. There is a big difference.
10/08/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
The article you reference is misleading. I was simply trying to provide the facts of the case. This has nothing to do with whether or not people have this fundamental right. The law currently does not recognize this as a fundamental right. The ...
Well, that's a mighty long title! I'm no lawyer either Kindred. This only tells me the defense was not adequate, whether or not they had what some may call "good representation".

1. There should be a law that states we the people do have a fundamental right to grow/consume whatever food we chose.

2. Even though it has been the right of mankind since Adam, but that is another controversial subject it seems.

3. It was not so much the plaintiffs that lost the case, but their lawyers. (insert crooked lawyer joke here)! Admittedly, the Roe v Wade argument was not meant to win the case. That is really the main thing that should have been said.


I'm thinking that if you had represented the plaintiffs, they may have won, that is, if you had wanted them to. You presented your case in an efficient and precise manner. Something the whole of the FCLDF did not do! Kudos to you.

I thank you for your legal input and links to said input as well.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.

You've got me curious; If you were defending this case, what would be your argument/defense?
10/08/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Antipova
I so wish raw milk was legal! Yes, there are bacterial concerns... but I'm not a baby and I'm not elderly, so I would likely recover from campylobacter or other problems.

And it would the taste would be so greatly improved. I keep a ...
OOH! I love you Antipova! Love, Love, Love you! I also want my bacteria back! All of it! And my freedom to drink it from the udder if I want it.
10/08/2011
Antipova Antipova
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
Raw milk is legal in some states: link

And again, the law does not prohibit you from drinking raw milk. The law prohibits the commercial distribution of raw milk. There is a big difference.
And when I grow up I'll own a Jersey. But I haven't got the wherewithal right now, and I do wish I could pick raw milk up at the store.
10/08/2011
Errant Venture Errant Venture
Quote:
Originally posted by Kindred
Raw milk is legal in some states: link

And again, the law does not prohibit you from drinking raw milk. The law prohibits the commercial distribution of raw milk. There is a big difference.
Also, it's legal to distribute raw milk over here, in the UK. Indeed, we buy it from the local farm shop.
10/10/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Well, if anyone here does decide to own their own cow to drink from it, take care that you do not board it ANYWHERE except on your own property, because these people did board theirs. They did not distribute their milk, but were called shams for milking their cows and going home... They had a private cow share agreement with the boarders and were called shams!
Yes it's in the original court document Kindred so kindly provided.


Take care that the cow is in your and your name only. No cow sharing allowed, especially in Maryland.


Take care also not to share your milk as the Amish do or you will be persecuted, have sting operations show up at your home with guns, shine lights in your children's eyes at 5 am, and possibly your home and farm will be taken away from you.

AND YES THERE ARE COURT DOCUMENTS ON THIS AS WELL!

Maybe Kindred would like to furnish them?


I for one am sleeping much better knowing these milk criminals are getting the gestapo treatment.
10/10/2011
Errant Venture Errant Venture
Did you know that there is an internet adage called Godwin's Law. It states that the first person to bring up Hitler and his wicked ways, automatically loses the argument ...
10/11/2011
KrazyKandy KrazyKandy
I have no idea why they would do something this dumb
10/11/2011
Eucaly Eucaly
Quote:
Originally posted by Antipova
I so wish raw milk was legal! Yes, there are bacterial concerns... but I'm not a baby and I'm not elderly, so I would likely recover from campylobacter or other problems.

And it would the taste would be so greatly improved. I keep a ...
Yes! Exactly!

It does seem to me that a fundamental right of cow-owners has been violated here, regardless of what the laws about distribution say.

Do we have to prove we have a fundamental right to watch TV or they take all the televisions away?
10/11/2011
Sara Marie Neff Sara Marie Neff
Quote:
Originally posted by Sex'и'Violence
That's such bullshit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with drinking raw milk, the gov just wants to make sure they can pump you full of their chemicals.
for someone who's screen name is reminicent of george carlin, your post is not nearly as witty as i hoped. Conspiracy theory much?

Hunny those 'chemicals' are in the water not the milk, if at all. Milk may be calcium fortified, but mainly they have it pasteurized to make sure that any harmfull micro-organizms in the raw milk don't have a chance to incubate while the milk is waiting to be distributed. There is nothing at all wrong with raw milk, if it is consumed right away.
10/11/2011
wetone123 wetone123
Quote:
Originally posted by Errant Venture
Did you know that there is an internet adage called Godwin's Law. It states that the first person to bring up Hitler and his wicked ways, automatically loses the argument ...
Well this is something I can agree with. Because it is right and just. I should not have brought up that wickedness.
10/13/2011
wetone123 wetone123
I think you will all find this interesting....

Food Rights, Gene Rights and Monsanto: ‘No Food Rights’ Judge quits to work for Monsanto law firm


By Rady Ananda

Global Research, October 13, 2011

Former judge Patrick J. Fiedler now works for Axley Brynelson, LLP, which defended Monsanto against a patent infringement case filed by Australian firm, Genetic Technologies, Ltd. (GTL) in early 2010.


Ruling against raw milk forces consumers to drink genetically modified, antibiotic-laden milk from cows fed an unnatural diet of pesticide-loaded feed. No doubt that makes Monsanto a major fan of Patrick Fiedler.

His decision was rendered on Sept. 9 and he stepped down from the bench on Sept. 30.

This case begs for competent legal counsel who can get the outrageous decision overturned.



ARGUE WITH THAT!!

Google it for a link!
10/13/2011
Antipova Antipova
In the two states I reside in, it's actually possible to get non-rBGH milk in stores. (The fact that it's in stores guarantees it's not raw---but it's also not hormone-addled). Not every brand produces one, but it's the only milk I'll buy.
10/14/2011
  • 1
  • 2
Total posts: 32
Unique posters: 14