Page 82 - Spring2015

RAW MILK UPDATES By Pete Kennedy, Esq.

MINNESOTA – DAVE BERGLUND
After having no success putting Gibbon dairy farmer Mike Hartmann out of business [See Wise Traditions Winter
2014], the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has set its sights on another raw milk producer, Grand Marais
farmer Dave Berglund of Lake View Natural Dairy. Berglund sells raw milk, cream, butter and other dairy products at
his farm store; he does not sell any product off the farm. There has never been a complaint about any of Berglund’s
products.
The trouble began for Berglund in 2013 when a dairy cooperative to whom the farmer wanted to sell milk informed
MDA about Lake View Natural Dairy. Department officials attempted to conduct two warrantless inspections that
year but Berglund refused to allow them to inspect even though on the second attempt the officials went into his farm
store without permission and took photos of equipment and various products for sale. When Berglund made it clear
in subsequent correspondence with MDA that he was not going to allow the department on his property to inspect,
MDA obtained an administrative warrant from Cook County District Judge Michael Cuzzo on October 14, 2014.
On October 22, MDA officials along with the Cook County Sheriff drove to Berglund’s farm; while MDA officials
waited at the farm gate, the sheriff spoke with Berglund, telling him that he didn’t have to allow the inspection of his
farm. The farmer said that he did not want MDA to inspect and so the sheriff went back to the MDA officials telling
them that he [the sheriff] would not participate in the execution of the search warrant. The MDA officials left without
attempting to inspect the farm.
The department responded to Berglund’s refusal by petitioning the Cook County District Court to find Berglund in
contempt of court for denying officials with a warrant access to his farm. MDA was seeking an order requiring Berglund
to submit to an immediate inspection with civil fines of $500 for each day the farmer refused. At a March 9 hearing
in Grand Marais, Judge Cuzzo temporarily denied, pending issuance of a final order in the matter MDA's request for
an order holding Berglund in contempt. The judge indefinitely stayed his order granting MDA the warrant to inspect.
He said he would be taking into consideration arguments on the validity of the warrant; he did not set a date for the
next proceeding in the case.
At stake in the case is the issue of whether a provision in the Minnesota Constitution exempts Berglund from
MDA’s jurisdiction. Under Article XIII, Section 7 of the state constitution, “Any person may sell or peddle the products
of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.” Berglund has contended
all along that the state has no jurisdiction over his operation.
The case is a chance to right the Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Hartmann. In that case the state
brought criminal charges against longtime nemesis Mike Hartmann for selling meat products without a license and for
the unauthorized sale of custom-processed meat. In a close 4-3 decision, the Court held that, while Hartmann did not
need a license to sell meat since it was a product of the farm under the state constitution, he could not sell custom-
processed meat since that was prohibited by Minnesota statute. The court held that Article 13, Section 7 “exempts
farmers from licensure to sell products but not from substantive regulation of the production or sale of their farm
products.” In other words, farmers were exempt from licensing but not from inspection or other regulatory require-
ments.
In issuing its decision, the Court ignored the historical context in which Minnesota voters passed the constitutional
provision in 1906. At that time, there was no inspection and regulation of farms in Minnesota; licenses were only a way
to raise revenue, not a means to mandate inspection of food producers and sellers. The Court also failed to convinc-
ingly explain how a product that was legal to consume [custom-processed meat or, in Berglund’s case, raw cream and
butter] could not be sold as a product of the farm under the constitutional provision.
The Berglund case is an opportunity to revisit the 2005 decision. The case presents a chance for small farmers
selling direct to consumers in Minnesota to get out of the current regulatory system and revert to a time when the
government left farmers and consumers engaging in direct commerce alone.

STATE RAW MILK BILLS
As usual, a number of bills have been introduced this legislative session to legalize or expand raw milk sales or
distribution. One has already passed into law with the possibility of several others to follow. Here’s a rundown of the
bills:

CONNECTICUT SB 360
Currently, the law only allows the licensed sale of raw milk; otherwise, raw milk can go only for personal use by

80 Wise Traditions SPRING 2015 Wise Traditions

150123_text.indd 80 3/27/15 2:59 AM