Page 88 - Spring2010

A key cause of action in the case is the constitutional right to privacy, which is protected by the Fifth Amendment’s
substantive due process clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that under the right to privacy, there is a fundamental
right to raise a family and be responsible for custody and care of one’s children; the Supreme Court has also held that
the right to privacy includes the right to be free from government interference with one’s body and physical health. The
lawsuit seeks to expand on these rulings and get a holding that the constitutional right to privacy includes the right to
obtain and consume the foods of choice. What is more fundamental to parents providing for the care of their children
than feeding them the foods they believe best for their health? It is taken for granted that we have the constitutional
right to eat the foods of our choice but there is nothing in the Constitution or any Supreme Court decision to date that
specifically guarantees that right.
If FDA accomplishes what it wants, that right will be denied to everybody desiring to consume raw milk. FDA is at
the center of opposition against raw milk; the agency’s goal is to eliminate raw milk sales state by state. The agency has
received a significant increase in its budget and will now be able to step up its enforcement actions against raw milk.
FDA recently sent two agents to the farm of Pennsylvania farmer Dan Allgyer to conduct a warrantless inspection. Allgyer
refused to let the agents inspect nor would he answer their questions, sending the agents away empty-handed.
The federal regulations at issue in the lawsuit are the biggest obstacles to exercising the right to consume raw milk
and the right to sell it. Without the regulations, FDA would not be able to pressure states as it currently does to ban the
sale of raw milk. Once the regulations are overturned, raw milk producers will have access to markets they have unjustly
been denied; and consumers will be able to obtain raw milk without having to worry about being in violation of the
law. If crossing state lines to obtain raw milk is in fact a violation of the law, thousands of acts of civil disobedience are
committed in this country every week

WISCONSIN: Wisconsin remains at the center of the battle over raw milk. The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,
Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) has continued enforcement actions against raw milk producers with an order
on January 26 to the Siegmann farm of Rubicon, prohibiting the farm from selling or distributing raw milk. That same
day, DATCP initiated official investigations of three other farms suspected of selling raw milk and raw milk products; the
investigation of Midvalleyvu Farm was eventually dropped.
DATCP was also on the receiving end of two lawsuits. On December 16, Grassway Organics Farm Store, LLC of
New Holstein and Grassway Organics Association filed suit against DATCP asking for a court ruling confirming that the
farm store could legally sell raw milk to the members of the association; the association invested in the LLC [see Wise
Traditions, Fall 2009 issue for more information]. The suit also is seeking a ruling confirming that the Craigs do not need a
food establishment permit to operate the on-farm store since it is not open to the general public. Under state law anyone
with that permit can sell only pasteurized milk in the establishment.
On February 25, Mark and Petra Zinniker of Zinniker Farm, Inc. in Elkhorn, along with Nourished By Nature, LLC
filed a lawsuit seeking a court ruling confirming that the Zinnikers could enter into a boarding agreement with Nourished
By Nature, LLC to board and care for cows owned by the LLC and to distribute raw milk to the LLC members. Earlier,
Zinniker Farm Inc. had signed a consent order with DATCP and the Woolworth County District Attorney, agreeing not
to sell or distribute raw milk in violation of the Wisconsin dairy code. The question for the judge is whether the boarding
agreement is in compliance with the dairy code.
In addition to its actions against farmers, DATCP has continued its investigation of Belle’s Lunchbox operated by
Max Kane. In June 2009, Kane had refused to turnover business records requested by DATCP on the grounds that the
agency did not have jurisdiction over his operation and that he would be waiving his right not to incriminate himself.
DATCP responded to Kane’s refusal by filing a petition with the Vernon County Circuit Court in Viroqua to get an order
that the agency had the jurisdiction to subpoena the records. A hearing on DATCP’s petition was held on December 21,
Judge Michael Roseborough ruled in favor of the agency.
Kane has filed notice with the Vernon County Court that he will appeal the decision. DATCP was not deterred by
the notice of appeal and set a March 18 hearing for Kane to turn over the records. Kane has made it clear to the agency
that he will not surrender the records and that any further proceedings should be stayed pending his appeal. Before
Kane’s hearing on December 21, a rally was held outside the courthouse in Viroqua. Among the speakers were Michael
Schmidt, Mark McAfee, David Gumpert, Scott Trautman, Kathryn Pirtle and 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candi-
date Michael Bednarik. Bednarik summed up the struggle for food freedom when he told the crowd, “This is what it’s all
about; either you own your own your own body and you are a free person or the government owns your body and you
are a slave.” In Schmidt’s words, “What we saw here was a galvanizing of a movement” (http://www.thecompletepatient.
com, December 22, 2009).
Shortly after the rally, Alliances for Raw Milk (ARMs) were formed in the U.S. and Canada to promote alliances at
the state, national and international level to support consumer freedom of food choice and the right of farmers to mar-
88 Wise Traditions SPRING 2010