Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- When You're Cutting Social Security, 'Wealthy' Begins at $25K
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
- With Little More Than a Note, Obama Deploys US Troops To Niger
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- Stripped of 'Country of Origin' Label, US Agrees to Sell Tear Gas to Egypt
- Yoga Wlll Turn Kids Into Godless Sun-Worshipping Pagans, Lawsuit Charges
- Big Winner in Italian Election? The Five Star Movement
- A Better Plan Than 'Endless Growth': Enough Is Enough
- The 'Land of 10,000 Lakes' Is Running Dry
- In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's
Popular content
Today's Top News
Published on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 by CommonDreams.org
If You Want More Local Food, Stop Criminalizing Family Farmers
On Wednesday January, 11 Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Herschberger must appear before a county judge in Baraboo, WI. His crime? Providing unpasteurized dairy products from his small herd of about twenty pastured cows to members of his own buying club. Half way across the continent in Maine, Daniel Brown, another family farmer with a small livestock herd was notified last November that he was being sued by the state for selling food and milk without a license. At the time he was milking one Jersey cow.
In Valencio County, New Mexico, the Hispano Chamber of Commerce was forced to cancel its popular Matanza Festival set for Jan. 28th under pressure from the USDA which said the centuries old tradition of processing and serving pigs on site could no longer be done outside of a federally certified slaughter facility. Last July in Oak Park, Minnesota bureaucrats threatened Julie Bass with up to three months in jail for daring to grow vegetables in her own front yard. In September, Adam Guerroro was ordered to remove his kitchen garden because it was deemed a “public nuisance” by Memphis, Tennessee officials. Apparently, Michelle Obama’s victory garden at the White House falls under a different jurisdiction.
This government crackdown on family farmers is absurd given the current sordid state of our food/farm system and the urgent need to relocalize agriculture for the sake of our health, as well as that of the planet. Study after study has shown that the most dangerous food is usually that which has endured the most processing and traveled the furthest.
“With millions of Americans contracting food borne illnesses each year, the USDA is committed to supporting research that improves the safety of our nation’s food system,” wrote USDA Deputy Secretary Kathleen Merrigan in the December 2011 issue of Agriview. In the same issue, it was also revealed that U.S. meat and milk exports had failed to pass the European Union’s standard for drug residues. Deborah Cera, leader of the drug compliance team at the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, admitted there were many violations involving scores of drugs in U.S. livestock. In a November 2011 article in the Wisconsin State Farmer, Kim Brown-Pokorny of the WI Veterinary Medical Association, warned that Wisconsin was the worst violator nationwide in terms of illegal drug residues in the meat of culled dairy cows. Yet, there was no mention in either article of prosecuting or penalizing these drug users or even informing U.S. consumers of this obvious food safety threat.
On January 4, 2012 the FDA announced it would finally ban the use of cephalosporins in livestock by April. Of course, this is but one small group of antibiotics representing less than .00032% of the 29 million pounds fed to livestock each year. Doctors use barely 20% of antibiotics in the U.S. to treat human disease – the other 80% are used on livestock to make them grow faster, and this reckless application is driving the evolution of antibiotic resistant pathogens that now plague our hospitals.
Meanwhile, the USDA, FDA, and various state agricultural agencies are squandering millions in scarce taxpayer dollars to criminalize small family farmers who are at the forefront of providing healthy and nutritious fresh food to their communities. For instance, according to an August 25, 2011 Natural News story, the WI Dept of Agriculture and Consumer Protection (DATCP) receives up to $80,000 a month from the FDA to wage its current crackdown on raw milk. The FDA even flew several of its officials out to Wisconsin to join DATCP colleagues for surveillance operations of local farmers' markets. This taxpayer subsidized harassment is reminiscent of the discredited National Animal Identification System (NAIS) which was also fueled by millions in USDA dollars funneled to DATCP for the unapproved registration and “identity theft” of family farmers simply to meet compliance quotas.
It is time citizens told elected officials and the public servants within government agencies whose supposed mission is to safeguard our nation’s food supply that enough is enough. Producing and consuming fresh local food is not a crime. In fact, every community should have the right to determine what they grow, raise, and eat – this is the underlying principle behind food sovereignty, first elaborated in 1996 by La Via Campesina, the largest umbrella organization for small family farmers in the world.
In March 2011 the citizens of Sedgwick, Maine passed the first Local Food and Community Self-Governance Ordinance. The ordinance states in part that “producers and processors of local foods are exempt from licensure and inspection when the producer is selling directly to a consumer intending to use the product for home consumption, or if the foods are sold at a community social event. Citizens have the right to produce, process, purchase and consume local foods of their choosing, and it shall be unlawful for any law or regulation adopted by the state or federal government to interfere with these rights.” Since then similar local food ordinances have been adopted by other towns in Maine, California, Vermont, and Massachussetts.
If people in Wisconsin want to enjoy access to fresh local food from family farmers in the future they may need to pass similar ordinances here. Otherwise, corrupt government under the sway of corporate agribusiness will make sure they have no choice at all.
Comments are closed
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
36 Comments so far
Show AllCaveat Emptor should be the watchword(s) here.
We now have abdicated that responsibility to institutions and government. Or more precisely had that responsibility stolen from us.
If we have a compliant, ignorant, unquestioning population (by design or fiat) then what else should we expect.
We are 'free' to be poisoned by the persons of corporationville, while not free to make our our informed decisions and the suffer the consequences of those decisions.
Its one of the reasons I grow some of my own food, have chickens, keep bees (in 2012), buy from local farmers at the farmers market. We still consume far too much processed industrial food but at least we are trying.
I think that it's pretty obvious that family farms are under attack because Big Ag doesn't want the competition for its nutritutionally valueless products and Big Pharma doesn't want people to have access to food that isn't laced with its poisons.
As is true of many areas of public concern, the real villain is Wall Street.
q
People have to consume 40% more food today to derive the same nutrients that the food supplied 40 years ago. Perhaps a contributing factor to obesity. It looks and tastes the same.
People have to consume 40% more food today to derive the same nutrients that the food supplied 40 years ago. Perhaps a contributing factor to obesity. It looks and tastes the same.
People have to consume 40% more food today to derive the same nutrients that the food supplied 40 years ago. Perhaps a contributing factor to obesity. It looks and tastes the same.
There's a reason why raw milk is not legal: tuberculosis and other infectious diseases were passed through raw milk before the advent of pasteurization, and since the majority of the people drinking raw milk were children, a lot of people died from it. I recall a schoolmate dying of scarlet fever from raw milk when I was a child in the fifties. Of course, tuberculosis, scarlet fever, and lots of other fun stuff were a lot more common before antibiotics, so it was more likely that dairy workers would have these diseases and in working with the cows, it would get into the milk (although from what I've read, there is also a bovine form of TB that can be passed to humans).
Should people be allowed to drink something that brings the risk of acquiring TB? No, because TB is not something that stays within one person. It can affect an entire community. So no, you DON'T have a right to drink something that can sicken your entire community, especially nowadays when because of the overuse of antibiotics in animal ag, we're getting TB that is highly resistant to antibiotics.
Raw milk is not any more healthy than pasteurized milk. The Weston A. Price Foundation, which is behind much of the impetus of the raw milk movement, is full of crap in terms of what they have to say about food, esp. raw milk, the "benefits" of a meat diet, and their absolute lies about vegetarianism (I am not a vegetarian). We don't need less regulation of the food chain. We need more, regulation that is actually applied and which does not allow big ag to get away with contaminating it. But tiny ag should not be permitted to introduce infectious disease into the community either, especially just so someone out there can make a profit.
Think, people, instead of just reacting to this kind of knee-jerk stuff.
The underlying point you are making is sound. That said the fact remains a lot of these regulations are being pushed by agri-businesses so as to cull out the competition.
Striking a balance becomes difficult and tends to have people falling on one side of the issue or the other.
In my opinion it is TRUE that when Government regulates agriculture with its sole focus being the health of the Public , the society is better off.
It is also TRUE that when they regulate so as to enhance profits for a small few society is not better off.
CD:"Meanwhile, the USDA, FDA, and various state agricultural agencies are squandering millions in scarce taxpayer dollars to criminalize small family farmers who are at the forefront of providing healthy and nutritious fresh food to their communities. " .....And this is how you want to regulate?.......Paracelsus: "We don't need less regulation of the food chain. We need more, regulation that is actually applied and which does not allow big ag to get away with contaminating it." But USDA, FDA doesn't stand by the rules that they make.
I choose to trust my neighbors when it comes to buying food. Support the efforts of your local farmers market, and basically tell the govt. to take a phkin' hike. Less regulations would simply go along with less corporations. Corporations be damned, because they call the shots from K street. Occupy K street. Everyone always seems to want rules for the criminals when criminals don't follow rules. People don't follow rules, that ain't knee jerk. People producing food on a local basis are not going to screw their patrons.
Milk is bad for you. Period. It is full of saturated fat, it is linked to heart disease, causes digestive problems, and it might contribute to a host of other health problems. Contrary to what we are being told all the time, there is no evidence that dairy is good for your bones or prevents osteoporosis. There is plenty of scientific evidence for all these claims, however the reason why you don't hear about them is that the dairy industry has a much bigger megaphone then any scientist out there. Got milk?
Having said that, all this "raw milk will kill you" is just dairy industry propaganda. Of course, any milk produced on factory farms will be full of pathogens such as E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella. I guess you could get TB or brucellosis. However, milk can also be tested to rule out the presence of pathogens. If you have several cows it's easier to keep them clean and healthy. If you have several hundred, or several thousand cows, that's a different story. That's why dairy industry in the US opposes sales of raw milk. Raw milk is marginally better than pasteurized milk, because it is less acidifying than processed milk. It is legal in Europe and most everywhere else.
"Milk is bad for you. Period. It is full of saturated fat, it is linked to heart disease, causes digestive problems, and it might contribute to a host of other health problems. Contrary to what we are being told all the time, there is no evidence that dairy is good for your bones or prevents osteoporosis. There is plenty of scientific evidence for all these claims, however the reason why you don't hear about them is that the dairy industry has a much bigger megaphone then any scientist out there. Got milk?"
No, not really:
1. The negative effects of sat fats are overstated. Firstly, there are different types of sat fats, for example, palmitic acid (palm oil), lauric acid (coconut oil), stearic acid (beef). They all have various positive and negative effects. Some, such as palmitic and lauric acid will raise LDL cholesterol (detrimental), BUT will also raise HDL cholesterol (desireable). Etc. The fat that is poison, that is the cause of heart disease, isn't so much sat fat, but rather, synthetic / man made trans fats such as elaidic acid. If you're concerned about heart disease, you're far better off spending your efforts trying to eliminate synthetic trans fats from your diet, which are / can be present in many foods, from margarine, to all manner of prepared snacks (cakes, candies, ho-hos, etc).
2. The best preventer of osteoporosis / osteopenia is resistance bearing exercise.
3. There isn't "plenty" of scientific evidence that milk causes digestive problems unless you are lactose intolerant. And there especially is not "plenty" of scientific evidence that milk causes "a host of other health problems".
4. Milk, at least that from grass fed cows contains some beneficial fats such as conjugated linoleic acid.
5. Raw milk contains beneficial protein microfracions such as immunoglobulins, lactoferrin.
"There isn't "plenty" of scientific evidence that milk causes digestive problems unless you are lactose intolerant." - First of all, 75% of adults worldwide are lactose intolerant, meaning that they do not produce lactase, the enzyme required to digest milk, so even by your standards, milk cannot be good for the vast majority of people if it causes symptoms like nausea, cramps, bloating, gas, diarrhea, etc.
Second of all, you might not be aware of it, but, yes, there is plenty of scientific evidence that milk is bad for you. You have to look for it, though. It won't come to you. Read "The China Study" by Colin Campbell, or even do some research on the internet. If you look, you can find plenty of reliable sources of information online. Here is a short overview of the effects of dairy on your health (note the references):
http://www.pcrm.org/health/diets/vegdiets/health-concerns-about-dairy-products
Here is another MD advising you you to take your cow for a walk: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dairy-free-dairy-6-reason_b_558876.html
I'm sure you can do your own research if you want to. Enjoy your milk if you like - just don't say that there isn't any evidence that it's bad for you, because it's not true.
http://thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf
I would add that,
Kidney stones may be caused from calcium build up in the kidneys due to adult milk consumption. Cheese is a better form of dairy for adults. Studies have shown Mormon adults have a higher occurence of kidney stones than the general population, The (LDS) adults drink a lot of milk.
Not too mention the damage done to the air and planet by cows(dairy and beef) in general.
Critiques of milk drinking usually refer to pasteurized milk. Unless those studies compare to raw milk, you can't extrapolate.
Regarding the planet damage,I have no ability to assess the truth of this but Joel Salatin has stated that if all animals were raised in natural systems we would sequester all excess CO2 in about 10 years.
Cheese, yogurt and other fermented dairy products might be easier for you to digest if you are lactose intolerant, however, there are health concerns associated with consumption of any dairy products. In my opinion, the risks outweigh the benefits, and anyway milk and dairy products are not necessary in the diet. And don't even start me on the environmental impacts, or superbugs, which might kill us all, meat and dairy eaters and vegans alike. (Talk about the risk to the "entire community"!)
"t, however, there are health concerns associated with consumption of any dairy products. "
There are also health concerns associate with the consumption of rice, bread, pasta, and even fruits.
If you are at the point where you are avoiding all dairy products from your diet due to health concerns, that you had better have already eliminated a whole bunch of other foods first .
Superbugs are due to industrialised farming.
Note, I actually don't consume much milk, or dairy products, I personally might drink a few glasses of milk every few months; some vegetarians (and I am one) and vegans have a tendency to overstate the health impacts of not consuming meat, or dairy.
"There are also health concerns associate with the consumption of rice, bread, pasta, and even fruits." For healthy people, the problem seems to be not so much consumption, as overconsumption of certain foods. Will meat and dairy kill you in small quantities? Not likely. Are you better off without them? I think so.
"Superbugs are due to industrialised farming." Yes, and factory farms - at least the kind responsible for superbugs - wouldn't be here if nobody ate meat or dairy. Or at least, if people ate it occasionally, and in small quantities. That's not the case.
"Kidney stones may be caused from calcium build up in the kidneys due to adult milk consumption. "
No not really. Supplemental calcium in the form of pills is linked to kidney stones. Not so calcium from dietary sources
Actually I'm well aware of the China Study, since it is the study that always gets cited by vegetarian and vegan advocates who are ignorant and scientifically illiterate. The China Study is useless. When you do an observation on a very large population, whatever you gain in sample size, you lose in not being able to control and account for whole host of other lifestyle factors that influence health.
And no, some MD on huffpost is not scientific evidence.
Furthermore the pcrm link just proves my point that advocates such as you, PCRM (who argue against milk, or Weston Price (who argue for raw milk) have a tendency to grossly overstate and exxagerate. The claim about fat content and cardiovascular disease is ridiculous. It is outdated and WRONG. The problem isn't fat per se, but mainly synthetic trans fats, and also, high glycaemic carb foods such as sugar, breads, pasta, etc. That PCRM link is NOT responsible. It is IRRESPONSIBLE, since they deliberately and knowingly distort the science that is available in the scientific literature to advance a political / philosophical viewpoint.
Your claim that 75% of adults worldwide is another ridiculous claim. Despite what (white) vegans in America might think, not all people of East Asian or African descent are lactose intolerant. And even among those who are, the severity varies. For example, one or 2 cups of milk might be tolerated, but more causes problems. Oh BTW, dairy consumption, milk, cheese, yogurt, in East Asia is ever increasing. More and more people in East Asia are consuming more and more dairy products.
Yeah, you are right, some MD on huffpost is not scientific evidence. However, he is able to succinctly explain to a layperson why it's not a good idea to consume dairy, and, unlike you, he provides at least some references. Furthermore, this isn't Jama. If you want to know more, let me repeat my earlier advice - do your own research.
I've seen the number 75% in several sources, but here is a Cornell University study that finds that "only" about 60% people are lactose intolerant. Still a pretty big number, if you ask me. I'm going to include the link here, because it explains why so many people cannot digest milk (or rather why some can - as a result of evolutionary adaptation).
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/june05/lactase.herding.ssl.html
Yes, you are right, dairy consumption, as well as meat consumption, fast food and western lifestyles are on the rise in Asia. All that has been closely followed by skyrocketing rates of obesity and western diseases.
You said: "I'm well aware of the China Study." - It doesn't seem like you have read it, or you would know that it's not just some statistical analysis. It contains over 750 references and, as Campbell himself says "the vast majority of them are primary sources of information, including hundreds of scientific publications from other researchers."
It looks like you label anything that challenges your beliefs as "ignorant and scientifically illiterate." No arguments necessary. This makes further discussion rather pointless.
I only want to respond to your point regarding the Weston A. Price Foundation. I have consistently found devotees to be blind, zealous, and dogmatic. And that's before they find out I am vegan!
If we're talking about milk, make it from raw, soaked, nuts like almonds or whatever your preference. I enjoy raw hemp milk personally, and I feel a whole lot better after drinking it than I ever did drinking dairy, even raw.
My two cents on dairy--it's nasty, disgusting business, and no matter how "well" you're doing it, you can't avoid the horror of veal and stealing the milk from a mother intended for her own child. Humans, the only only species that drinks mammal milk beyond infancy. And it's not even their own.
Weston Price devotees are zealous and dogmatic. So what? Vegetarian and vegan advocates can also be equally dogmatic and zealous.
Advocates have a tendency to grossly overstate the merits, or demerits of any particular food, or macronutrient.
"Humans, the only only species that drinks mammal milk beyond infancy. And it's not even their own."
OK. How many animal species wear clothing? Are you proposing that humans and you, now should stop waring clothing?
Drinking milk as an adult is not widely practiced worldwide. It may be the norm in America, but not in the rest of the world. Most adults lose the ability to produce lactase, an ezyme that breaks down milk sugar(lactose). There are still tribes of humans living in the tropics that do not wear clothes. The weather dictates attire for most people.
"Drinking milk as an adult is not widely practiced worldwide. It may be the norm in America, but not in the rest of the world. "
I have lived most of my life "in the rest of the world". In all those countries that I lived in, dairy consumption was hardly an unusual thing.
"here are still tribes of humans living in the tropics that do not wear clothes. The weather dictates attire for most people."
And what other animals fashion and wear clothes? They simply grow thicker / thinner fur, or die.
Paracelsus says, Should people be allowed to... Well with over one million laws and counting, forty thousand new ones this year alone, I guess we are not allowed to do much. And yet those who decide what we are not allowed to do, well they do any damn thing they please to anyone they want. These things include murder, torture, acts of war, paying themselves huge salaries and benefits with tax payer money, insider trading, sweetheart deals, and gaming the system anytime they know they can get away with it. But back to what people should be allowed to do. You say drinking raw milk puts others at risk? What about driving a car, that puts others at risk, in fact kills 40000 people a year. How about people that wear a ton of cheap perfume, they make me sick. Quick get the swat team he's trying to grow some food.
Actually, I have thought.
Raw milk MIGHT contain various harmful substances. MIGHT. IF the farmer uses unhygenic practices.
There are ways to deal with the potential of harmful substances. Actually testing the milk.
"Raw milk is not any more healthy than pasteurized milk"
Yes it is.
"The Weston A. Price Foundation, which is behind much of the impetus of the raw milk movement, is full of crap in terms of what they have to say about food, esp. raw milk, the "benefits" of a meat diet, and their absolute lies about vegetarianism (I am not a vegetarian). "
That foundation has a tendency to exaggerate and overstate things. That is not different from pretty much any advocacy group. Nonetheless some of the thing they say are correct (And I AM a vegetarian).
"e don't need less regulation of the food chain."
Or perhaps we need a shorter and smaller food chain. If you have a long long long food chain, yes, you need to spend lots of effort regulating it. OTOH, a shorter chain is much easier, much simpler to regulate.
Think, before spouting a bunch of knee jerk stuff.
While I respect people's issues on and aversion to raw milk, I can say without flinching that I have been drinking raw milk quite often with no regrets or sickness. With the right technologies, issues associated with raw milk should be less. Rfloh explained it better.
Raw milk became dangerous when milk began being processed in industrial systems. rfloh is right, we need a shorter food chain.
We don't need to regulate farm-to-consumer businesses.
Those who supported the phony food safety bill were foolish. NONE of this is about safety, it's about Big Ag profits. They can't tolerate competition, no matter how small. Big Ag has introduced infectious disease and done it with tax dollar support.
I suggest a look at www.morningland dairy.com and read the tale of horrors this family farm suffered despite th fact that no one got sick or complained about their cheese.
If you don't want to drink raw milk, fine. Personally, I hate milk. But it's not your business or the government's business to decide what foods someone can or cannot eat. Oh--I've thought about this for the past 38 years.
Government Inc. is in the process of criminalizing any self employed person. The goal is corporate sefdom.
Governing taken to the point of reductio ad absurdum. Good examples of why we're in an economic mess and, I fear, with no light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Actually the reason that Raw Milk is illegal is that there is money in regulating it and having dairies sell all their milk through Big Ag conglomerates or coops such as Organic Valley.
I grew up in north wales and I am sure that the local farmer up the hill sold raw milk 'cos his shed wasn't big enough to pasteurise it. The eggs I bought from the chicken farmer still had poo on them.
Can't ever remember getting too sick.
Our knowledge of disease transmission and good farm practices as well as screening should take care of most potential infections. Remember Semmelweis and Child bed fever.
I don't think big farms that rely on antibiotics are really any safer. See all meat recalls. Certainly our dependence on Big ag/ antibiotics may have disastrous consequences in the long term. Read the 'Demon under the microscope" for some chilling accounts of life in the preantibiotic era.
If you have livestock they have to be regularly tested for TB and Brucellosis.
A good dairy herd and farmer will know when not to sell milk, because his herd is sick.
Again its caveat emptor. Who do you trust?
Thank you CD for exposing the FDA and the USDA for being shameless accomplices to Big Agri. People who want to grow their own food are being harassed by the government. Meanwhile, corporate agriculture has depleted the land of its minerals and corn infests almost every food sold in a box. Most USAns have been slowly and systematically herded into a lifestyle of unhealthy food choices. If one wants to target a giant tyrannical corporationm, Monsanto would be a great start. Imagine more people cooperating against Big Agri followed by telling our pols who shamelessly "defend" them to back off and keep their noses out of the way we eat. Support your local farmers; vote with your feet, hearts, and minds; and atrophy the muscles of corporate farming and the food industry.
I do object to criminalizing gardening. And I'm opposed to the corporatocracy.
Now that I'm retired, I grow 24 raised beds of vegetables in my 2.27-acre yard year round here in Florida. I keep fruit trees, urban chickens, rabbits, and bees as well. No cows or goats (yet). My surrounding gated community neighbors complained to government code enforcers who made me get rid of my chickens. But I replaced them with non-forbidden peacocks. The first mating season brought that to an end, but now the neighbors are tolerant of chickens (which I brought back).
Part of gardening is having "pests." Rats get after the chicken and rabbit food. Squirrels get after my avocados. Coons and foxes come regularly to salivate through the chicken wire. Armadillos sneak around at night, destroying gardens to get at my earthworms. Opossums do the same. Wild rabbits come to eat my lettuce and flowers. I deal with snakes, frogs, skunks, ducks, owls, hawks and eagles. Not to mention the bugs, fungi, and molds attacking my veggies. I suppose that gated-community dwellers don't like having a pest-attractant mini-farm in their midst, and that they'd like to see me carted off to the state penitentiary. In fact, the farmer in me wants to fight back: there's a Florida law afoot to call picture-taking of instances of animal cruelty on farms a terrorist act.
I have two havaheart traps and used to take many pains to transport the offending creatures miles away for release. But it is now illegal to transport trapped wildlife anywhere--due to, they say, danger of spreading rabies, etc.
The unfamiliarity of the common 99%-er with the fundamentals of farming, plant production, animal husbandry and basic earth-related realities makes indignation and hand-wringing proper responses to "industries which brutalize animals with horrific conditions and/or pump them full of chemicals and drugs."
However, people involved intimately with agriculture know that the adorable little chickens, pigs, cows, sheep, goats, rabbits and wildlife [especially the kinds that like to indulge in the abundance of our non-nomadic lifestyles] present difficulties that require a certain hardheartedness on the part of the caretaker.
Robert Burns' farmer in "To a Mouse" is charming for his romantic generosity. But a farmer's rodent problems are best solved with focused death-dealing. Similarly, one can hardly expect an egg-producing farmer to pet each chicken daily and allow each a dust-bath on a free-range pasture. And not to mercilessly kill predators that are out to eat his egg-layers? Likewise domestic animals frequently suffer and die from dietary deficiencies, viruses, parasites and other elements of the law of claw and fang.
The tools at hand for a farmer's managing his fields, flocks and herds are sometimes repugnant to the high-heeled city folks. Nevertheless, these same people must not complain with their mouths full. It might cause the real terror of hunger and mass starvation for large segments of the 7 billion humans with whom we share the earth.
I'm no romanticist gardener. I use the local grocery, pharmacy, and farmers' markets. I try to grow organically but am merciless toward trespassing creatures like bugs, coons, etc. who come to my land to steal.
The Amish back when I was a boy were permitted to kill creatures like deer out-of-season when they came to feed on Amish crops. I used to think it unfair, even harsh. But the law of claw and fang supersedes other more quaint approaches.
As much as I am for restraining and regulating corporations, I aver that we do not want to disappear them. Terrorism? I may have to defend my gardens from marauding hungry people--besides the chicken police and PETA advocates.
Writing as someone whom is at the beginning stages of turning various parts of his property into a small urban farm (this year is the shakedown cruise part of the experience), I find it somewhat disconcerting that the USDA is still operating in a 50's era mindset while teaming up with big business. Food is a basic that humans can not go without, and to control it is to rule (the Romans knew that very well).
Sales of raw milk (both cow and goat) are regulated at the state level with approx 10 states that currenly allow for legal sale.
Having said that, producers are required to provide a sample for testing prior to recieving their certifaction. I am only familiar with Idaho's regs, which for the most part are fairly straight forward and easy to deal with. And testing is even paid for by the state.
It's up to local food activists to organize themsevles and lobby their state reps in order to change their regs to allow for legal sale of raw dairy products.
Organize with and through their local CSA's and make a difference!
Forget the argument about raw vs. pasteurized milk / eggs / etc. The real issue we should all be concerned with is the overuse of chemicals in our food production. And not for ourselves, but for our grand kids and great grand kids. I'm not sure humanity is a long-lived species...we continue to knowingly do really bad things to our planet for short term gain. I'm a certified organic food farmer and I choose to produce food this way not to make money but to protect my planet.
While I agree with the misuse of public funds to criminalize milk operations and to allow corporate farms to fill their livestock with drugs, I think you mislead about the home gardens being prosecuted- those are local cases, by cities or towns. However crazy those local rules are, they are local and could be easily brought down by local activists- drawing a comparison to the white house garden doesn't work, obviously there are thousands of folks with front yard vegetable patches all over the country that are not ticketed! The locals should ask for Michelle's or some representative of the white house's support- don't try to blame the Obama's when they are supporting the right thing by growing a garden on their lawn!