Skip to comments.Lawmakers Advance Effort to Legalize Raw Milk
Posted on 03/30/2014 1:34:38 PM PDT by RightSideNews
As a producer of grass-fed beef, I am familiar with some of the difficulties small farmers face when marketing fresh food directly to consumers. Our bills would make it easier for families to buy wholesome milk directly from farmers by reversing the criminalization of dairy farmers who offer raw milk, said Rep. Massie. The federal government should not punish farmers for providing customers the foods they want, and states should be free to set their own laws regulating food safety. Representative Pingree says this legislation supports small farmers. Many consumers want to buy fresh, unpasteurized milk and regulations shouldnt get between them and the farmer who wants to sell it, said Representative Pingree. Given how many food scares there have been involving large-scale producers, it just doesnt make sense to spend money cracking down on small, local farmers who are producing natural, raw milk and cheese. The enforcement of raw milk regulations has been overzealous and needs to be reined in.
(Excerpt) Read more at virginiafreecitizen.com ...
last time I drank raw milk I was 9 and I got Yellow Jaundice..AKA Hepatitis...
I find it encouraging that someone somewhere thinks using SWAT Teams against dairy farmers is ridiculous ...
I'm sure I consumed some in my pre teens.
However, a free people can determine what they consume without government telling them what they can and can't do.
This is about freedom from nanny government, not food safety.
I has good bacteria in it plus many people think it tastes better.
Its also necessary for cheese making.
The microbes may help the flavor of specialty cheeses, but they aren't required. Any cheese making supply can provide pure cultures of required bacteria, along with rennet.
Perhaps i should have said good cheese.
I drank raw milk every day of my life until the folks moved to town when I was 16 - apparently there are some immunities transmitted in the unpasteurized and unhomogenized version of that freshest of products.
The milk was generally consumed the day it was produced, as there was some concern about refrigeration. What cooling there was came about largely because of submerging the milk cans in fresh-flowing spring water, as mechanical means were not yet in widespread use in rural communities.
I wish we could get it down here in FL. Its impossible to make cheese from the usual ultra-pasteurized milk.
I don’t have the slightest interest in consuming raw milk, but I don’t see why other people shouldn’t have it.
If you have problems with digestion, raw milk is a superb probiotic.
Purple berries do it for me..
Helped me get over some wicked acid reflux. Of course, this being Florida, I had to accidentally get from my 'pet's' supply.
This is just crazy talk. before you know it they will be letting people eat and drink what they please. What comes next, freedom of speech too? It’s a slippery slope.
Blessed are the cheesemakers.
H O W E V E R ...
If a milk farmer sells his milk only to residents of the same state that the farmer is a resident of then, regardless what FDR's activist justices wanted everybody to think about the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, the states have never delegated to Congress the specific power to regulate such commerce.
In fact, when FDR's activist justices decided cases which tested the limits of Congress's powers in the 1930s and 40s, they wrongly ignored that Thomas Jefferson had officially clarified the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers. Using terms like "does not extend" and "exclusively," Jefferson had clearly indicated that Congress has no business sticking its big nose into intrastate commerce.
For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively (emphases added) with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. Thomas Jefferson, Jeffersons Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank : 1791.
But who cares what Jefferson said about the Commerce Clause? After all, Constitution-ignoring RINOs and Democrats will argue that the Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says that it means.
That being said, the problem is that FDR's puppet justices had also wrongly ignored that the Supreme Court had previously not only reflected on Jeffersons words about the limits of Congress's Commerce Clause powers, but had also used agriculture, in the context of the 10th Amendment nonetheless, to clarify that the states have never granted to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate agricultural production.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited. None to regulate agricultural production is given, and therefore legislation by Congress for that purpose is forbidden (emphasis added). United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, noting that I have yet to find references to any of the excerpts above in the Wickard v. Filburn opinion (corrections welcome), using terms like "some concept" and "implicit," here is what was left of the 10th Amendment after FDR's justices got finished with it.
In discussion and decision, the point of reference, instead of being what was necessary and proper to the exercise by Congress of its granted power, was often some concept of sovereignty thought to be implicit (emphases added) in the status of statehood. Certain activities such as production, manufacturing, and mining were occasionally said to be within the province of state governments and beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause.Wickard v. Filburn, 1942.
FDR's justices had reduced 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty to a wives' tale imo.
So regardless of federal interference in intrastate commerce, including agriculture, since the time of Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR, the feds actually have no more power to make laws which regulate intrastate commerce, imo, than they have to regulate our 1st Amendment-protected freedoms.
Finally, the reason that the corrupt federal government is continually getting away with unconstitutional expanding its powers is because parents are not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government's constitutionally limited powers.