Raw Milk Victories

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
I support raw milk because like I read a while back, people haven't lost the right to produce milk on their own despite the industrialization of agriculture. People want to take control their food supply from multinational corporations and this is one example of it. And getting farm animals off drugs. Those four legged junkies.


Case against raw milk sours | Toronto & GTA | News | Toronto Sun

Case against raw milk sours

Farmer acquitted over unpasteurized product

By IAN ROBERTSON, Toronto Sun, Last Updated: 21st January 2010, 8:15pm



NEWMARKET — A farmer cheering the “raw milk revolution” chugged a mug of the unpasteurized cow juice after his acquittal Thursday for breaching 19 provincial regulations.

Surrounded by well-wishers from as far as the U.S., Michael Schmidt, 55, claimed a victory for freedom of expression and organic food products free of government controls.

“Government has no business in people’s stomachs,” the unlicensed 27-year owner of Glencolton Farms in Durham, Ont. said in an interview.
The Canadian Alliances for Raw Milk co-director said he will enter politics in a bid to change laws banning sales and distribution of unpasteurized, unsterilized milk products.

After Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) officers raided his farm in late 2006, Schmidt was charged with breaching public health regulations, the Ontario Milk Act, and the Health Protection and Promotion Act (HPPA).

Prepared to protest under constitutional grounds, his federal Charter of Rights and Freedoms Act application won’t proceed, due to Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky’s findings.

Schmidt pleaded guilty and paid a fine in 1994 to breaching regulations by providing milk to customers leasing his cows.

After forming a club, he charged screened members $300 for a quarter-cow for six years, plus $2-to-$2.15 a litre. His raw milk products were sold at the farm or to Cowshare card holders from his mobile milk product delivery “Blue Bus” in York Region and Toronto.

Schmidt also held public rallies, lectured at North American universities and recruited chefs.

The raid and seizure of equipment occurred after undercover MNR agents infiltrated Schmidt’s farm .

Health and government officials accused him under laws dealing with placing the public at risk.

But in his 2 1/4-hour decision, Kowarsky ruled Schmidt broke no laws.
Up to 70 supporters in the standing-room-only courtroom — including one wearing a shirt with the slogan “our cows don’t do drugs” — applauded.
Schmidt, whose trial ended last February, did not attack the legislation, Kowarsky said. “It is a difference of opinion.”

His milk is distributed not to the general public, but to members told of potential risks, he ruled in his 75-page decision.

Kowarsky said several countries legalized raw milk.
While upholding current legislation and avoiding the raw milk issue, he said the province assumes pasteurization renders dairy products the only ones safe for humans to eat or drink.

But Kowarsky said laws passed with the best of intentions should be revisited, to consider changes in social acceptance plus medical and scientific evidence.
Public health tests on Schmidt’s milk products showed “no disease,” he said, adding the Crown produced no evidence of anyone getting sick.

Prosecuting lawyers later said they have not ruled out appealing the decisions.
John Middlebro, one of two Grey Bruce Health Unit lawyers, said he was “surprised” by the “unique and different” ruling.

“The world is not a better place today,” Dr. Murray McQuigge, the Grey-Bruce medical officer of health in 1994, told QMI Agency.
Schmidt’s supporters later held a four-hour indoor rally.

ian.robertson@sunmedia.ca
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
WOOT! Another example of nannyism down the tube. We have been drinking raw milk and making butter from raw cream since we moved here. I think a LOT of disease is psychosomatic in politicians
 

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Oh, this is just super news. Thanks so much for sharing it, DTM. I know more than a few people around here who will also be cheering the decision. :smile:
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Excellent news. I hope it sets a big precedent right across the country. I was raised on raw milk, and I would love to have an ongoing supply of raw milk butter and cheese. (AnnaG...I am jealous!)
 

Said1

Hubba Hubba
Apr 18, 2005
5,336
66
48
51
Das Kapital
I remember my uncle used to put it in a regular milk carton, inside the fridge. City kid was told to help herself to some 'fresh' cows milk, drank some, and almost barfed on the spot. STILL a family joke. :lol:

But yeah, good for him.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island
Good news for those with food allergies. Everyone drank raw milk for centuries until the nanny state came along and bureaucrats told us what is "good" for us and what isn't.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Everyone drank raw milk for centuries...
Yep, and raw milk is a near-perfect culture for some pretty nasty little bugs, that's why the regulations for handling and processing it are what they are. Do any of you raw milk fans actually know why pasteurization was mandated in the first place? Or even understand what this court case actually means? That Schmidt guy didn't break any laws because he wasn't trying to sell raw milk to the general public, he sold it to a closed club whose members had been warned about the risks. Doesn't mean your local dairy's going to stop pasteurizing milk, or that you'll be able to buy raw milk in your local grocery store. “Government has no business in people’s stomachs” is flatulent nonsense; you really want your meat and dairy products to be unregulated and uninspected? Go to the CFIA web site and look at the list of all the contaminated food products they've detected and recalled. You want that stuff in your local Safeway and Loblaws? That's not the nanny state, it's legitimate public health measures.
 
Last edited:

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Gee Dexter S, people wnat some choice here. There are people who still have their taste buds and can tell industrial food from non-indust food. And it is a fact food has become less nutritious over the decades. It's time to roll back a little a system that hinders individuality in food.

One of the basics of biology is diversity, monoculture, which our current agriculture is, has a greater risk of imbalance and collapse.

And don't get me started on cloned cows/meat. Cows have no trouble reproducing, they don't need scientists for assistance here. Cloned meat is caca meat.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Gee Dexter S, people wnat some choice here.
Sure, and my choice is to have the foods I buy be properly regulated and inspected so I can be confident they're safe to eat.
... it is a fact food has become less nutritious over the decades.
Is it? Got some stats on reduced life expectancy and increased nutritional deficiences to justify that? It's true there's a lot of crappy processed food available, and a lot of fat and nutritionally deficient people around, but that's because they've made bad choices in the foods they eat, not because good stuff isn't around.
And don't get me started on cloned cows/meat... Cloned meat is caca meat.
Okay, I won't, it's not relevant to the thread subject anyway. You may be right, I don't know, though there's no obvious reason why cloned meat would be nutritionally any different from regular meat. But I don't think there's any meat from cloned animals available anyway, I don't see your point here.
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Yep, and raw milk is a near-perfect culture for some pretty nasty little bugs, that's why the regulations for handling and processing it are what they are. Do any of you raw milk fans actually know why pasteurization was mandated in the first place? Or even understand what this court case actually means? That Schmidt guy didn't break any laws because he wasn't trying to sell raw milk to the general public, he sold it to a closed club whose members had been warned about the risks. Doesn't mean your local dairy's going to stop pasteurizing milk, or that you'll be able to buy raw milk in your local grocery store. “Government has no business in people’s stomachs” is flatulent nonsense; you really want your meat and dairy products to be unregulated and uninspected? Go to the CFIA web site and look at the list of all the contaminated food products they've detected and recalled. You want that stuff in your local Safeway and Loblaws? That's not the nanny state, it's legitimate public health measures.

Isn't the CFIA the experts who participated in the Maple Leaf/Listeria "event"...more than once?

Really, if the government had 'legitimate public health' on their list of important things to do, our food selections at Safeway and Loblaws would look a lot different than they do now. You really like latex paint ingredients in your ice cream? Diabetes-causing high fructose corn syrup in your jam? Bad cholesterol coupled with an absence of Vitamin E and Conjugated Linoliec Acid (CLA) in your supermarket beef? "Acceptable levels" of rodent dung in your raisins? MSG in a variety of processed foods? How about carcinogenic food dyes in those yummy beverages and other things? Or maybe some nice bug-killing sprays on your grapes from Chile? I'm sure the pus in your factory milk is safe, due to pasteurization but if the bloody dairy was "clean" and the cows were fed right in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

The array of chemical food additives in your food is staggering, and nobody has any data or tests on what the cumulative effects of this craziness is. So just how in hell can they deem it "safe?" They can't.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to flood the food with things that kill bugs...at least they prevent short-term deaths in some cases, which is all the CFIA is concerned about...the dreaded lawsuits and bad press. It is one hell of a shallow approach to food. Like treating symptoms instead of digging into the root causes of problems, and then fixing them.

It's pretty hard to think that any government at any level is concerned about food safety in a "total concept approach", because they don't understand it. And it doesn't appear that they have the guts or the brains to put 2 and 2 together to figure out why the health care costs are going up at such scary rates. You are what you eat. And we generally are not eating good food.

So yes, I am in total agreement with the decision made in Ontario on raw milk. I hope it finds its way out here to BC so that people who want to make an intelligent choice and the people who wish to supply the intelligent solutions can be left to do so without being criminals about it. Imagine, it's OK to buy a can of pop because it's "government-inspected" but it's not OK to buy perfectly clean milk raw from a farmer who knows how to produce it. Completely bizarre.
 

countryboy

Traditionally Progressive
Nov 30, 2009
3,686
39
48
BC
Pasteurized milk is just another processed food.

Here's some info. on the subject:

Salmonella Outbreaks In Pasteurized Milk

Sally Fallon, V.P. of the Weston-Price Foundation, in her article More About Raw Milk on the Real Milk web site, says that pasteurization is no longer required.All outbreaks of salmonella from contaminated milk in recent decades — and there have been many — have occurred in pasteurized milk.” She explains that even the 1985 Illinois outbreak affecting 14,316 people, contained a salmonella strain in pasteurized milk that was genetically resistant to both penicillin and tetracycline.
Pasteurization destroys the organisms in raw milk that protect against pathogens, leaving it devoid of its protective mechanism against undesirable bacterial contamination. Raw milk reacts by souring normally, while pasteurized milk, lacking this beneficial bacteria, putrefies. Vitamin C content after pasteurization is less than 50%; and other water-soluble vitamins are as low as 20%. A high price to pay for an unnecessary process.
Why Would Anyone Want to Drink Raw Milk?

Another negative effect of pasteurization is destruction of the Wulzen factor (named after researcher Rosalind Wulzen) present in raw butter, cream, and milk. And one of the most common disease conditions of this age is arthritis. The Wulzen factor is a compound present in raw animal fat that protects against joint calcification, hardening of the arteries, and cataracts. Calves fed only pasteurized milk quickly get joint stiffness, but symptoms are reversed when fed raw butterfat.


Read more at Suite101: Why Would Anyone Want to Drink Raw Milk?: And What Is the Difference Between Raw Milk and Pasteurized Milk? http://cookingresources.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_would_anyone_want_to_drink_raw_milk#ixzz0dVKejA5o

There is much more information available on raw vs. pasteurized milk, but the link to the above artice is: Why Would Anyone Want to Drink Raw Milk?: And What Is the Difference Between Raw Milk and Pasteurized Milk?
 

dumpthemonarchy

House Member
Jan 18, 2005
4,235
14
38
Vancouver
www.cynicsunlimited.com
Sure, and my choice is to have the foods I buy be properly regulated and inspected so I can be confident they're safe to eat.
Is it? Got some stats on reduced life expectancy and increased nutritional deficiences to justify that? It's true there's a lot of crappy processed food available, and a lot of fat and nutritionally deficient people around, but that's because they've made bad choices in the foods they eat, not because good stuff isn't around.
Okay, I won't, it's not relevant to the thread subject anyway. You may be right, I don't know, though there's no obvious reason why cloned meat would be nutritionally any different from regular meat. But I don't think there's any meat from cloned animals available anyway, I don't see your point here.

Sure, people live longer and food has gotten better, but many feel a dead end has arrived in food tech. People are quite free to buy junk food if they want, and most don't use their meals with it. But others want something simpler in their food.

Cloning just popped into my head. Cloned beef/meat is ready, it's that people reject it. This is the kind of thing the food industry would fight like rabid hyenas to prevent a label saying, "cloned Meat". They are against full disclosure. They just want the profits and our bodies will take the risks. A bit too much downloading here for my liking.

Cloning relates to monoculture, it's the ultimate in uniformity and homogenization. They said cloning of animals couldn't be done not too long ago, but they did it. And to what end? In food and a dead end of uniformity and science has been found here.

Maybe people want to learn more about food to get ready for peak oil. We've been removed from the land for progress. I think it relates to how many women feel oppressed by cooking, a skill they have had for thousands of years, basic knowledge of food is essentially folk knowledge. And not just women, men too. Which accounts for greater diabetes and other diseases.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
536
113
Regina, SK
Isn't the CFIA the experts who participated in the Maple Leaf/Listeria "event"... .
Yes, but suppose CFIA hadn't been there. Would that contamination have been caught and corrected? No system of regulation and inspection can be perfect, but if there's none at all you're going to get poisoned eventually, unless you can create all your own food, and even then you might get poisoned if you do something wrong in handling it. It's very easy, for instance, to get salmonella from mishandling poultry at home, even if the stuff has passed all inspections and regulations. A mistake by CFIA or Maple Leaf doesn't invalidate the principle behind sensible public health measures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gerryh

Liberalman

Senate Member
Mar 18, 2007
5,623
35
48
Toronto
The lawyers are happy about this decision because they just acquired new business.

Any farmer that sells raw milk to the public will face lawsuits from people that get sick.

I doubt that major grocery chains will be interested in carrying raw milk because of their short shelf life so the farmer will have to sell the stuff off their farm.

Just like the cigarette packages raw milk will have to put labels on their containers of the potential dangers of drinking this milk.

http://www.bccdc.ca/foodhealth/dairy/Raw+Milk.htm
 
Last edited:

Mowich

Hall of Fame Member
Dec 25, 2005
16,649
998
113
75
Eagle Creek
Isn't the CFIA the experts who participated in the Maple Leaf/Listeria "event"...more than once?

Really, if the government had 'legitimate public health' on their list of important things to do, our food selections at Safeway and Loblaws would look a lot different than they do now. You really like latex paint ingredients in your ice cream? Diabetes-causing high fructose corn syrup in your jam? Bad cholesterol coupled with an absence of Vitamin E and Conjugated Linoliec Acid (CLA) in your supermarket beef? "Acceptable levels" of rodent dung in your raisins? MSG in a variety of processed foods? How about carcinogenic food dyes in those yummy beverages and other things? Or maybe some nice bug-killing sprays on your grapes from Chile? I'm sure the pus in your factory milk is safe, due to pasteurization but if the bloody dairy was "clean" and the cows were fed right in the first place, you wouldn't have to worry about it.

The array of chemical food additives in your food is staggering, and nobody has any data or tests on what the cumulative effects of this craziness is. So just how in hell can they deem it "safe?" They can't.

It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to flood the food with things that kill bugs...at least they prevent short-term deaths in some cases, which is all the CFIA is concerned about...the dreaded lawsuits and bad press. It is one hell of a shallow approach to food. Like treating symptoms instead of digging into the root causes of problems, and then fixing them.

It's pretty hard to think that any government at any level is concerned about food safety in a "total concept approach", because they don't understand it. And it doesn't appear that they have the guts or the brains to put 2 and 2 together to figure out why the health care costs are going up at such scary rates. You are what you eat. And we generally are not eating good food.

So yes, I am in total agreement with the decision made in Ontario on raw milk. I hope it finds its way out here to BC so that people who want to make an intelligent choice and the people who wish to supply the intelligent solutions can be left to do so without being criminals about it. Imagine, it's OK to buy a can of pop because it's "government-inspected" but it's not OK to buy perfectly clean milk raw from a farmer who knows how to produce it. Completely bizarre.

Here! Here! Very well put, CB. I grew up drinking nothing but unpasteurized cow's milk. Heck our entire family of eight did so, and not once did any of us get sick from it. Since then, I have purchased raw milk from several different people over the years, whenever I could find it. Did I get sick - no, not once.

I have to agree with you on the so-called inspection of our food too. There are so many harmful additives in our food today that I find it best to stay away from anything that I am not 100% sure is natural.

Sheesh, just driving by a KFC or A&W these days and getting a whiff of the odors emanating from those establishments is enough to make my stomach turn, literally.
 

Cannuck

Time Out
Feb 2, 2006
30,245
99
48
Alberta
I grew up drinking nothing but unpasteurized cow's milk. Heck our entire family of eight did so, and not once did any of us get sick from it. Since then, I have purchased raw milk from several different people over the years, whenever I could find it. Did I get sick - no, not once.

My grandmother smoked a pack a day up until she died at 87 from a fall down the stairs. Further proof that smoking isn't harmful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: gerryh