Help stop HB 825 and SB 962
Virginia herd share programs, which have flourished in the state for nearly 30 years are under attack. Legislation that has been introduced to officially legalize herd share programs is actually an attempt to intimidate farmers and consumers from either entering into or continuing on with herd share agreements, contracts in which consumers purchase ownership interests in dairy animals entitling them to milk from those animals. House Bill 825 and Senate Bill 962 provide possible criminal penalties for farmers and consumers who fail to turn over copies of their contracts to government agencies (HB 825 has a registration requirement that all herd share agreements must be on file with the Commissioner of Agriculture). Both bills state that a violation of any provision in them is a first-degree misdemeanor with penalties of up to a year in jail and $1,000 fine per offense. The bills specifically state that each day during which a violation occurs constitutes a separate offense.
The bills also attempt to scare off consumers from entering into herd share agreements by requiring the contract contain a clause stating that “the consumer/shareholder assumes joint liability associated with the milking herd and any milk produced by such herd….”
The bills drive up the farmers’ costs significantly by mandating yearly testing of each animal in the herd for tuberculosis and brucellosis even though the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has designated Virginia as both a tuberculosis- and brucellosis-free state.
The legislation also forces farmers to trash the product they produce by requiring a consumer advisory on raw milk containers “indicating the danger of consuming unpasteurized animal-derived foods that have not been processed to remove pathogens.”
The bills were introduced under the guise of addressing the possibility of foodborne illness outbreaks attributed to herd share raw milk distribution but, as far as is known, there has only been one herd share operation that has been blamed for causing a foodborne illness outbreak. Further, the invasion of privacy and interference with property rights the bills would trigger is unnecessary to conduct an investigation of a foodborne illness outbreak. Herd shares are a closed-loop arrangement in which raw milk is only distributed to co-owners of the animals not in the stream of public commerce.
There is a high level of traceability in herd share programs if there is a suspected illness given that the government has all the authority it needs under existing law to conduct a competent investigation. The bills would upset the balance between the law’s protection of privacy and property rights and the government’s protection of the public health. If there is credible evidence of a foodborne illness outbreak and the herd share farmer is not cooperating with the investigation government agencies like the state departments of health or agriculture can get a search warrant in the blink of an eye. Under both bills government inspectors have the power to conduct warrantless searches of the homes of farmers and shareholders.
Finally the regulations the bills call for are going to burden taxpayers–HB 825 gives the government broad rulemaking power to the tune of $238,062 annually from 2019 onward without any corresponding benefit to the public health.
For all these reasons passage of the bills is unnecessary and a major threat to herd share programs. Those caring about food freedom of choice, privacy rights and private property should act now to defeat HB 825 and SB 962 by contacting their representatives.
ACTION TO TAKE
Please contact your Delegate and Senator and tell them to vote NO on HB 825 and SB 962. Look up your legislators via RichmondSunlight.com – click here and enter your street address.
Post your opposition on RichmondSunlight.com for each bill:
Once a hearing date is set for the bills, we will be sending a follow-up alert asking you to contact members of the Senate Agriculture Committee and either the House Agriculture Committee or the House Agriculture Subcommittee asking them to vote NO on the bills.
If at all possible, please attend the hearings for this legislation that is a threat to the future of Virginia herd shares.
TALKING POINTS
1. The bills attempt to intimidate farmers and consumers from starting up or continuing herd share programs by making violations a first-degree misdemeanor with penalties of up to a year in jail and $2,500 in fines per offense.
2. The legislation invades the privacy rights of shareholders and herd share farmers by forcing them to turn over their contracts to the government under the threat of criminal penalties if they do not.
3. The bills further attempt to intimidate shareholders into not joining a herd share program by requiring that the contracts they sign with the farmer provide that shareholders assume joint liability if the herd or milk produced by the herd is responsible for any injury or illness.
4. The bills require costly annual testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis. The tests aren’t necessary. The USDA has designated Virginia as both tuberculosis- and brucellosis-free.
5. Herd shares are a closed-loop arrangement with a high degree of traceability should there be any suspected illness; they should not be subject to government regulation.
6. The government has the authority under existing law to competently deal with any foodborne illness outbreak. The expanded powers the legislation gives to the Commonwealth are not necessary.
7. The bills interfere with the private property of shareholders the government should not be involved in the business of consumers obtaining a milk from animals they co-owned.
8. SB. 962 would give VDACS rulemaking power to further burden farmers beyond what the requirements in the bill itself does.
9. HB 825 would cost taxpayers nearly a quarter million dollars a year to regulate a private contractual arrangement not in the stream of public commerce.
10. The bills require farmers trash their own product by having a consumer advisory on milk containers warning of “the danger of consuming unpasteurized animal-derived foods. Is it necessary to have this warning on raw milk going to the co-owners of the dairy animals that produced it? Is it necessary to have any labeling requirement at all that these bills do?
🖨️ Print post
Re: “House Bill 825 and Senate Bill 962 provide possible criminal penalties for farmers and consumers who fail to turn over copies of their contracts to government agencies”:
“Penalties” can occur Lawfully only by volunteering into the state’s jurisdiction. Therefore – the individual can demand to be shown the Organic Law that specifically requires them to do what the state claims is required for the state and the individual can demand this proof of jurisdiction at any point along the timeline that they are contacted by the state.
There are additional points that can be made in regards to what is Lawfully required vs. what is in truth simply an “offer” (although apparently “baited” with coercion) to engage with the state. In any case – more education is needed here regarding what is truly Lawful for the state and what is actually coercion (an element which completely nullifies any presumption of an agreement between any two parties). If an individual feels hard pressed into “compliance” they can still reserve all their unalienable Rights by noting (on anything they sign with the state) their “submission” is under TDCFU (Threat, Duress, Coercion, Fraud and Usurpation)!
Links to these bills would be helpful to examine. They could be studied as a practical lesson.
Here is a link to the HB 825:
https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2018/hb825/fulltext/
and 962:
https://www.richmondsunlight.com/bill/2018/sb962/
Thank you very much Maureen!
Unless an individual understands the Organic Laws they are most likely going to be vulnerable to making assumptions about the dictates of their government. I’m reasonably certain that this will more often then not be the case even though the “Founding Fathers” warned Americans that they had to be vigilant in restraining government. Unfortunately I have not seen a positive response to many dozens of comments that have been very kindly offered (by yours truly) pointing to the need to know the Organic Laws and now I am largely refraining from making further elaborations on the vital difference in perspective between the present-day government “codes” (i.e. the code of Virginia) and fundamental Law (sometimes referred to just as “The Constitution” however, and IMO, best understood as the Organic Laws).
I wish this status (of what might at least be agreed upon as “silence”) could be interpreted more positively than how I may appear to judge it however I have a (sometimes challenging) standing agreement not to make assumptions about others and yet I wish to respond to yet another indication of governmental overreach that is repugnant to my core values and especially to the American Spirit that is most definitely incarnated in me!
I feel obliged to at least give a very brief opening statement on what could possibly become an introductory prelude to the Organic Laws if interest were ever to be expressed.:
Any two or more individuals have it as their unalienable Right to make/enter into any agreement of their choosing not only with impunity but also without incurring any interference by external government. This is part of the Common Law of America that actual predates the Organic Laws. The only restraint to this freedom is that the individuals cause no harm to any other individuals. If this Law, that predates every “code” of every corporate state, were to be completely understood and adopted the American people wold not suffer the onerous codes of corporate fictions that threaten the livelihoods, health and well-being of Americans (for the enrichment of government retirement funds and other off-ledger accounts fed by fines and penalties).