Raw Milk Debate of February 16, 2012 & Follow-ups
Harvard Food Law Society hosted a debate on the legal, nutritional, and safety aspects of raw milk.
Date: 2/23/2012 8:07:36 PM ( 3 y ) ... viewed 1424 times
First there was a most excellent presentation by Sally Fallon Morell! I'm looking forward to the possibility of getting the power point presentation that she had for this event! I think it was the best I've ever seen!
One commenter at YouTube said: "The Detractors FAILED at responding to the evidence and points of the Proponents."
Sally presented some very good evidence and made excellent points, none of which was ever refuted!
One item she presented was especially revealing regarding the following:
"... Dr. Harold Harris had published an article in the May 1945 issue of Coronet Magazine, a popular publication of the time. In it he states that what happened at Crossroads, USA, which 'lies about 25 miles from a big city,' could happen in your town. In detail, he describes the epidemic of undulant fever that infected 25 percent of the population and killed one in four. Case histories were then presented to show how debilitating the disease could be.
The truth is there was and is no Crossroads. This never happened in any town in the USA. It was simply a figment of the author's imagination. When cornered, Dr. Harris squirmed out of his dilemma by saying he just presented it as a possibility. This was typical of propaganda widely circulated for many years by news media most likely fearful of losing the substantial revenue reaped from advertising and other financial support of these large dairy corporations. ...":
"...Examination of a few samples of the propaganda campaign to which our press and popular monthly magazines have ... lent themselves will serve to show, to some extent, how the American public has been duped into an acceptance of pasteurization as a cure-all.
Selected for examination are: "How Safe Is Your Town's Milk?", by Holman Harvey, The Reader's Digest, August, 1946; which in turn was condensed from Mr. Harvey's article in The Progressive (Madison, Wisconsin), July 15, 1946; "Raw Milk Can Kill You," by Harold J. Harris, M.D., in Coronet, May, 1945; and "Undulant Fever," by Milton Mackaye, in Ladies' Home Journal, December, 1944.":
David Gumpert's presentation was entitled: "Raw Milk Safety Versus Rights - Striking a Balance". One of his three closing questions (that he directed to the opposing camp) included "the Right of private contract". IMO, "private contract" deserves to have at least the number one, lead (if not sole) position in any "raw milk" or other debates (involving any kind of food Rights) and that this topic alone justly deserves an additional "debate".
This is because private contract always involves some form of property. Lawful property ownership is the chief cornerstone for determining all legal issues involving Rights. (In issues with governmental agency the determination on ownership may be regarding who owns the milk, the cow and or the land.) Without a complete understanding of property (and it's ownership) and all the Rights that are relevant to Lawful ownership of property (and especially including the Right to contract) debates on food rights will not be fully grounded in what American Law is based on. Whenever governmental agencies attack Americans and deny them any of their Rights to their property then all pertinent written American Law needs to be referred to and applied to repudiate the malicious attacks! In this instance, the "issue" of bacteria, health etc, is not really the fundamental issue.
I'm actually disappointed that this "legal aspect" of raw milk wasn't given the prominent attention it justly deserves and that is sorely needed for the public good, especially in light of the fact that it was hosted by a "Food Law" group at Harvard! Hopefully this is not the last debate and subjects like the true Lawful context for raw milk can be presented in full glory. Maybe I need to arrange that! If so do I need to start my own "Food Law Society"?
The Right of private contract is the main "high-way" that I "travel" on now whenever I give my attention to this issue. Understanding and exercising the Right of private contract is essential in any movement intended to protect access to to raw milk (as well as all the other food freedom issues). And it is of foundational importance for virtually all Americans regarding the issues of freedom that are confronting us now. If you look into it you will find that everything comes down to the issue of contract or agreement. It's the basis for government, business and for virtually all our relationships and yet the public education system (at least the one I grew up being conditioned under) does not address the need for our full complete conscious awareness of the nature of contracts and the need to know virtually everything about them, i.e types of contracts, how they are formed, what they can consist, etc.
"Raw Milk Safety Versus Rights - Striking a Balance". The first part of this title is straight on target. It is the bulls-eye of the current contest between government agencies (and their asserted safety position) vs. small raw milk farmers along with the raw milk drinking public. These governmental agencies are proceeding against the farmers and private contractual relationships under the banner of milk safety but as Sally pointed out it is (what I call) a false flag operation. If raw milk supporters know that there really isn't a safety issue (notwithstanding everything that the anti-raw milk camp says to deny that) then why would we want to attempt any kind of balancing act with that? It is a false position that doesn't have to be accepted and therefore not really worth giving any more attention to. The issue then comes back to ownership and property rights.
Come back to full truth, if need be state the truth in Lawful affidavits of truth and exercise the Rights of Contract. In Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution we see that "No State shall ... make any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts". That is the written American Law! It is a truth in Law. Therefore, all that is needed is a full complete understanding of the nature and law of contracts. I believe that every one from the age of 18 on up needs to know as much as any lawyer knows about private contracts (and possibly more). "The English common law age of majority remains twenty-one years, the age one may enter into contracts." I imagine that about three years should be devoted to the study and mastery of contract law. How much contract law have you had so far?
And when a small raw milk farmer is confronted by a government agent the first thing that he could say is "show me the contract that obligates me to your agency". Lawful Government is all based on written law and written law is what we have to use to bind government back upon itself. "Show me the written contract or leave!" Contracts are the basis for the individual's relationship with government! Otherwise we are operating under a false presumptions of being subject to an agency which then sets us back to a subject status that existed before the Declaration of Independence! That's not the direction I'm headed!
See the replay of the debate here:
At 1:22:25 into the replay a member of the audience asks about the safety of Kefir. Two of the panel members said they don't think there are any reports of any incidents with Kefir.
Question/request to the panelists regarding freedom.
From this point on (through the end of the event) the debate got all the more interesting. Unfortunately I just lost a couple hours of work (that I had just put into this blog here) writing about that and I'm not willing to put in all the hours to attempt to duplicate that now. So here's every thing in "nut shell" and just note that I can elaborate on this many times over.
I was especially interested in hearing David speak right after Sally. He made a full presentation in favor of raw milk and I intend to review that at least once again. (The YouTube site (of this event's video recording) says the power point presentations can be available from the site of the host organization. I've inquired about that and look forward to the possibility of getting those!) David made a couple statements that I feel are very important for me respond to now. The most important is his statement that the "US Constitution doesn't refer to food because in those days there wasn't the slightest thought that food would be an issue so it has to be interpreted by the courts." There are three parts to this statement and I believe they all deserve to be responded to in full.
First, it is true that the Constitution of September 17, 1787 does not refer to food, food issues or the like at all! Food, of course, was never ever the focus for that Constitution! Although what David says in the second part of his statement may be true as far as what the founding fathers didn't think, it should be noted that this absence of thought was not an oversight, failure or any other lack in that Constitutional drafting process. The real point to be made here is that the absence of "food" as a legal subject matter and/or a Rights issue is simply not within the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Firstly, lawful government jurisdiction requires government ownership of property. At least at the time of 1787 (and continuing into the 20th century) our American-grown food came from private Americans living on their own private land. The federal government did not have land ownership for agricultural purposes. Therefore there was not a government proprietary basis for the government to be granted the authority over our food at all! As far as the "Constitution" goes - our food is essentially our own private matter! "Food safety" is therefore a private matter just as the food itself is a private matter. Direct involvement in private "food safety" is not a Lawful federal function, however, if there are injuries that come from the lack of food safety possibly on a private farm then that incident may become a legal issue on the State level if the injury can not be settled directly between the parties involved. But this debate was not addressing state jurisdictions. The only time that federal jurisdiction should be invoked over "food safety" is if there is a controversy between two states over a food safety issue involving the two states. I have never heard of a real food safety issue over raw milk that involved two states.
If you agree that it's true that the federal government was never authorized by the Constitution to address "food safety" then it follows that the federal courts are not generally the venue to have "interpretations" made on food safety issues. That's my response to the last part of David's three part statement.
So far, the issues that I have heard in the debate that were presented as a justification for federal involvement have been regarding incidences where a death or health injury was allegedly traced to contaminated raw milk.(1.) However, the ant-raw milk presentations made no mention of the deaths and illnesses that have been attributed to pasteurized milk and /or pasteurized milk products. That leads me to think that there is not a real level "playing field" present at this debate. In fact I doubt that the two sides are really on the same playing field at all! I think the federal is a separate field that should not be invoked at all unless one has an unsettled claim against another state that exhausted the legal system and still did not settle.
The reference to "the Constitution" alone is worth a whole blog devoted to that one subject. If we all agreed about the Constitution then that could be a reliable foundation but the fact is we don't all agree about that and that is to our severe disadvantage!
Fortunately I have already blogged on "the Constitution" in one of my other CureZone Blogs: "Son of Truth of Self" and to quickly summarize that now I can say the
the Constitution of September 17, 1787 is one of four Organic Laws that are likened unto four pillars in that they all stand together as a set in supporting the Republican form of government that is based on written laws! See "Four Pillars of Constitutionalism" by Richard H. Cox. Therefore we need to have a complete understanding of these four Organic Laws and the form of government that they all support and that is not possible by only referring to "the Constitution". The "Constitution" does not stand alone, it never did, it was formed in light of the other "pillars" and especially including the "Articles of Confederation" and it directly pertains to the "Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government". The proof that these are the Organic Laws and that they are to be considered is the fact that they are found in the United States Code (starting at page XLIII of vol 1, 2006 ed.) There are additional proofs that Richard Cox has written on as well.
David also made a statement about "driving and cars are a "privilege". Firstly - "driving" is a legal term that specifies commercial transportation of people or goods. The actual legal term that is used to designate the operator of those "for hire" situations is: "driver". Anyone can now verify the accuracy of this so no one has to "believe" what I am saying in this instance! "Driving" then can fall into the arena of commerce. There is a license required for these drivers who are operating in commmerce.
However, on the other hand there is a "Right to Travel" and that Right is not a privilege! Rights can not be converted into privileges! The problem is that the government public school system doesn't distinguish the truth of this at all (even though it is distinguished in many court decisions as well as in legal codes pertaining to the subject)! For instance I went to a public high school in Chicago and they required "Driver's Education" in order to graduate. Right away the term "driver" is used (even though I can now prove that the term is a legal term with a specific legal meaning that is other than what conventional wisdom believes). Then the class instructor required everyone to get a Driver's Permit and from that moment on everyone that got their permits were in the system whether or not they ever actually became a commercial "driver" or not! Yet most people who are able to operate a car think of themselves as drivers. And because we (essentially) volunteered into the system we think "driving is a privilege" and we do not realize that with "thinking" like that we have unknowingly abandoned our Right to travel! And just like the Japanese girls that had there feet bound to restrict foot growth, the manifestation of our rights become atrophied! Please think about that for one minute.
And I'd like to know what the Lawful basis is for the idea that "cars are a privilege". I just can't imagine what that might be based on except that most people may not have the "manufacturer's certificate of origin" and therefore they do not have absolute clear title to their cars. And if they do not have that absolute ownership then it may be questionable as to whether they have a right to their car or if they have the car as a privilege. But teaching others that "cars are a privilege" without this reference is not full disclosure on the issue. It all comes back to property and ownership as a real tangible basis for Rights and again that requires complete clarity regarding what property ownership is.
But the thought that "food is not a privilege" is very well stated! My contention is that I'd like to see irrefutable examples used when contrasting food Rights over actual privileges. They are certainly in two different realms! - When making statements to distinguish Rights from mere privileges - I want to see irrefutable soundness in the examples! Articulating the contrast is something that is truly needed!
Related Update - February 28, 2012:
"Harvard study: Pasteurized milk from industrial dairies linked to cancer":
(1.) May 7, 2012 -
(Sent the following (with minor edits) to David Gumpert.):
Since this "Raw Milk Debate" event I have been inspired to have a better understanding of CDC "quality assurance" for their statistical generating process. I finally was able to follow-up with CDC today about that. I have been directed to this page:
Based on my brief overview of this page it appears to include information that I think is of interest to me. After I get at least an introduction to the CDC "quality of information" process I may then want to verify that this process was applied to all the data that CDC has ever used for implicating raw milk as a source of illness, etc.
I intend to know whether or not the verification process (that I've mentioned here) has already been applied to the quality of information in the CDC raw milk statistics. If it has been applied then I want to see the complete record of that verification process.
I know that Ted Beals made a report (published in the Wise Traditions Journal by WAPF).
Did he identify all of the CDC "quality of information" criteria and then apply all of that to the data that he gathered? I will have to review his article again with that in mind.
If the CDC "quality of information" criteria hasn't been referred to in any response to date to the CDC claims then I think there is a need for that.
The above is one step that I think either needs to be taken or that deserves a report showing that the criteria to insure "quality of information" has been applied in both the original statistical process and in the critique of that information. I especially want to support the online access to the reports so they can be better known and understood by people.
Then (assuming that there is incorrect information circulating by CDC) it seems that corrections are probably going to be needed and the need for those corrections will be easily recognized by the public if they ever need to support the correction process.
I want to know if anyone has filed "a correction under Section 515 of Public Law 106-554 of information disseminated by NCHS". If not then I might personally start there and ask CDC if there has been anything submitted to them about a need for correction re: raw milk statistics.
Update - May 9, 2012:
Haven't heard one peep from David so far. Sent the following to CDC:
Sent: 5/9/2012 07:57:21 PM
Subject: "Quality Assurance Policies, Standards, and Processes for Ensuring the Quality of Information Disseminated to the Public"
I have found this subject (quoted in the subject line above) at:
I'd like to know all of the "Quality Assurance" practices that NCHS uses in it's "statistical practices and methodologies". I have read this section on the webpage (above) and now would like a complete list of the
practices that NCHS uses to assure statistical quality.
Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!