Page 86 - Spring2010

“Bury him in Pennsylvania, but transfer him farmers bottle this stuff themselves! You’ve got to make the consumers
to your own duffel bag so he don’t rot. And pick pour the milk into their own jugs, or all hell will break loose.
up a gallon of raw milk while you’re out there.”
RHODE ISLAND
PENNSYLVANIA Raw milk sales are illegal with one exception: An individual may
Raw milk sales are legal on the farm and in purchase raw goat milk from a producer if that person has a written, signed
retail stores. Raw milk for retail producers must prescription from a physician.
have a permit and can only sell to stores if they So that lady from Kentucky with capralactinecessitis can live in at
have their own packaging operation with labeling least one other state and still receive treatment. Lucky break.
and bottling machines.
For Pete’s sake, didn’t the Pennsylvania Tom McNaughton is a standup comic and the creator and producer of Fat
regulators learn anything from the Great Raw Head; visit his blog at www.fathead-movie.com.
Milk Massacre in Illinios?! You can’t let the
RAW MILK UPDATES by Pete Kennedy, Esq.

CANADA: No event in the raw milk movement is bigger or more important for freedom of food choice than the court’s
ruling in the case of Canadian dairy farmer Michael Schmidt. On January 21 in the Ontario Court of Justice in Newmar-
ket, Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky found Michael Schmidt not guilty of all nineteen charges brought against him by
the Crown for alleged violations of Ontario law. Charges dealt with offenses related to the Ontario Health Protection and
Promotion Act (HPPA) and the Ontario Milk Act. The issues in the case boiled down to whether Schmidt’s cow share
program violated the broad prohibition against the sale of raw milk in the province. Under the cow share agreements with
Schmidt’s dairy, Glencolton Farms, investors would pay the farmer $300 to purchase a quarter interest in a cow enabling
the investors to obtain raw milk and raw milk products from the farm. Ontario law basically states that “no person shall sell,
offer for sale, deliver or distribute milk or cream that has not been pasteurized…”; a similar statute exists for milk products.
In Justice Kowarsky’s view, the only issue before him was this: “Is the defendant guilty of the offences with which he
is charged or does the fact that he sells his milk and milk products only to paid-up members of his cow share Program
exculpate him?” In providing an answer to this issue, the judge’s opinion raised several other questions which get to the
heart of the matter in the ongoing battle between regulators and consumers who are exercising their legal right to drink
raw milk when its sale is illegal. As stated in the judge’s decision:
• If the purpose of HPPA and the Milk Act is primarily public safety, does the legislation apply to a structured group
of private people, such as members of the defendant’s cow share program, who may wish to become involved in
activity which in itself is not unlawful, so that public protection of such people is not required, and therefore the
legislation concerned is not applicable to them?
• Are the cow share members bound to accept the protection offered to the general public in the legislation or are
they permitted to reject the protection offered, and assume any risks which may be involved?
• If the ultimate purpose of regulatory legislation is to protect those who are unable to protect themselves, especially
those who are particularly vulnerable, do those members of society who expressly waive the need for protection,
still need the protection? Relating to this case at bar, if, in consuming raw milk per se the cow share members are
not committing an unlawful act, and they wish to continue to do that within the parameters of the essentially
private cow share program, why should they be forced to be bound by legislation which is intrinsically aimed at
the vulnerable—those who need the protection?
In finding for Schmidt, the court held that the cow share program is a private enterprise not subject to the public
health laws and that individuals have the right to waive the protection of public health laws. The factors leading the judge
to rule that Ontario’s prohibition on the distribution of raw milk not applying to Schmidt’s cow-share program were that
the farmer did not advertise; he did not solicit shareholders; the investors were warned that they would be consuming the
raw milk at their own risk; Schmidt provided the investors with information explaining his farm practices and the respec-
tive responsibilities of Glencolton Farms and the cow-share owners; the investors purchased shares in the cows of their
own free will; the milk was not available to the general public; there was no evidence that anyone ever became ill from
consuming the milk from Glencolton Farms; there was “no evidence that members of the public were placed at risk by
being in contact with or in the company of cow share owners who were consuming raw milk products”; and the evidence
was that Schmidt’s products and operation were clean and hygienic. In light of these facts, the judge held that Schmidt’s
cow share program did not circumvent public health laws but rather enabled him to function within the parameters set
by the legislation.

86 Wise Traditions SPRING 2010