Farmer Acquitted Of Producing Milk Without License

[bonnie]

Farmer Acquitted Of Producing Milk Without License

May 28, 2013 | 10:04 am

Sean Higgins

Senior Editorial Writer

It is a sad fact of modern life that seemingly everything is both heavily regulated by the government and politicized. This applies to, yes, even cow’s milk. Witness the case of Wisconsin farmer Vernon Hershberger, who was prosecuted for selling raw milk to willing consumers — in this case friends and neighbors:

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Jurors found Vernon Hershberger, a 41-year-old Loganville, Wis., farmer, innocent of producing milk without a license, selling milk and cheese products without a license, and operating a retail establishment without a license. He was found guilty of one count of breaking a holding order issued by the state in June 2010, which barred him from moving any of the food he produced without a license.

Sign Up for the Politics Digest newsletter!

The verdict means Mr. Hershberger can continue to sell his farm’s products to members of the buying club he started, said one of his attorneys, Elizabeth Rich. He faces as long as a year in jail and $10,000 in fines for the one guilty count; a sentencing date has yet to be announced.

“This is a huge win for food rights,” said Liz Reitzig, a founder of Farm Food Freedom Coalition, a group advocating for greater consumer access to natural, unprocessed food. The case “should give small farmers renewed courage to continue to operate within their communities.”

Milk is commonly pasteurized to remove harmful bacteria, but advocates of raw milk say the process also wipes out many beneficial nutrients. Raw milk can be consumed on the farm but can’t be sold legally in many states, including Wisconsin.

The case followed a nearly four-year investigation of Mr. Hershberger and his farm, Grazin Acres LLC, by the state, the No. 2 dairy producer after California. During deliberations, which capped a five-day trial in Sauk County Circuit Court, dozens of farmers, food-rights activists and Hershberger family members filled the courthouse, sharing raw milk from Mr. Hershberger’s farm. (Emphasis added.)

The prosecution might have made sense if the consumers were not aware that the milk was not pasteurized but there is no evidence that that was the case. In fact, it appears that people bought Hershberger’s product precisely because it was raw. The milk was apparently sold to only 200 people that Hershberger considered “part owners in the farm.”

So, why was the state eager to prosecute Hershberger? As the Journal article notes it is being lobbied to do so by the “Wisconsin Safe Milk Coalition,” an industry lobbying group that doesn’t like competition from raw milk farms and so is trying to bully them.

Meanwhile, many vegetarians and radical animals rights activists are anti-milk, arguing that drinking any form of it is both unhealthy and cruel to cows. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals once went so far as to urge college students to drink beer instead. (As if they needed any encouragement to do that.)

[joeb]

During my high school years we bought, and drank, raw milk from a local farmer. It came with a couple of inches of cream rising to the top after it sat for a while. Oh, man, that was good milk. So much better than anything you can buy in a store.

We also had friends that had their own Jersey cow during the 80's and got raw milk from them too. Jersey's put out some really rich milk. The cream from that cow made the best perogies I've ever eaten. The cream was used in making the dough and to bake them in. Fattening, but oh so tasty.

[bonnie]

During my high school years we bought, and drank, raw milk from a local farmer. It came with a couple of inches of cream rising to the top after it sat for a while. Oh, man, that was good milk. So much better than anything you can buy in a store.

We also had friends that had their own Jersey cow during the 80's and got raw milk from them too. Jersey's put out some really rich milk. The cream from that cow made the best perogies I've ever eaten. The cream was used in making the dough and to bake them in. Fattening, but oh so tasty.

If it is my choice to buy raw milk why shouldn't I be able to?

[joeb]

If it is my choice to buy raw milk why shouldn't I be able to?

Because father Obama, and uncle Eric, know best?

[Neil D]

Regarding Bonnies comment:

If it is my choice to buy raw milk why shouldn't I be able to?

Because father Obama, and uncle Eric, know best?

[bonnie]

Hey, didn't you READ the article???? let me quote you the pertinate part-

Quote:

So, why was the state eager to prosecute Hershberger? As the Journal article notes it is being lobbied to do so by the “Wisconsin Safe Milk Coalition,” an industry lobbying group that doesn’t like competition from raw milk farms and so is trying to bully them.

It's an "industry lobbying group" that prosecuted...not the government....Get yer facts straight....

Good idea,this says the state prosecuted. I don't think a lobby group can prosecute anyone.

Regardless of who is responsible for lobbying the state is the one that prosecuted.

[joeb]

Regarding Bonnies comment:

If it is my choice to buy raw milk why shouldn't I be able to?

Originally Posted By: joeb

Because father Obama, and uncle Eric, know best?

Hey, didn't you READ the article???? let me quote you the pertinate part-

Quote:

So, why was the state eager to prosecute Hershberger? As the Journal article notes it is being lobbied to do so by the “Wisconsin Safe Milk Coalition,” an industry lobbying group that doesn’t like competition from raw milk farms and so is trying to bully them.

It's an "industry lobbying group" that prosecuted...not the government....Get yer facts straight....

LOL.... Industry lobbying groups have the right to prosecute people in our justice system? Realllyyy???? That's funny. I always thought it took prosecutors and government officials to do that. My mistake. I'll bow to your great wisdom....

[bonnie]

LOL.... Industry lobbying groups have the right to prosecute people in our justice system? Realllyyy???? That's funny. I always thought it took prosecutors and government officials to do that. My mistake. I'll bow to your great wisdom....

Glad to see you got your facts straight.

[joeb]

Glad to see you got your facts straight.

It's taking me a while, but I'm getting there. Self-deception is hard to overcome....

[Guest]

Hey, didn't you READ the article????

It's an "industry lobbying group" that prosecuted...not the government....Get yer facts straight....

[Neil D]

But Neil, you should learn at least a couple of facts for yourself, before you tell ANYBODY to get their facts straight.

Here, let me try to help you.

Fact: Lobbying groups cannot prosecute anybody. All they can do is lobby.

Fact: ONLY the gov't can prosecute. Private groups of citizens, no matter how large, cannot do it.

Fact: You are the one who needs to go back and read the article. Then read it again, very slowly. If need be, read it a third time. See if you can find, and comprehend, the part that you quoted, that says:

Quote:

So, why was the STATE eager to prosecute..

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

Hey, didn't you READ the article????

It's an "industry lobbying group" that prosecuted...not the government....Get yer facts straight....

Evidently low reading comprehension is a common trait among low information voters.

But Neil, you should learn at least a couple of facts for yourself, before you tell ANYBODY to get their facts straight.

Here, let me try to help you.

Fact: Lobbying groups cannot prosecute anybody. All they can do is lobby.

Fact: ONLY the gov't can prosecute. Private groups of citizens, no matter how large, cannot do it.

Fact: You are the one who needs to go back and read the article. Then read it again, very slowly. If need be, read it a third time. See if you can find, and comprehend, the part that you quoted, that says:

Quote:

So, why was the STATE eager to prosecute..

Now you guys go easy on Neil. He's in a learning process. Maybe.

No, I don't think the lack of comprehension or being the ill-informed voter is coming from Neil in this case. Basic law here, which any high school civics student should know. Most types of civil, and many types of criminal prosecution requires an initial complaint, a complaining witness. For example, if someone vandalized your house, nothing happens unless you report it and file a complaint. The victim of the crime reports it typically. Felonies are typically crimes against more than the immediate victim and law enforcement in such case act on behalf of all the people. (That is why in some states the case is still framed as "The people vs. ______.) In this case the complaining witness was the lobbying industry that had a vested interest in this situation. The government wouldn't have likely even known about this farmer, much less done anything without that.

To be fair it is not simply the threat of competition from the raw milk producer. A small time operator is not going to put the agro businesses that are behind the lobbying out of business. The threat is the impact of inferior, tainted, or harmful food products will have on public health and consumer confidence. In this matter of raw milk product, there is a significant health risk of unpasteurized milk. Just consider what has happened when the reports of tainted peanut butter from just one source hit the news. People stop buying any peanut product. That hurts the whole peanut industry.

And for those anti-government advocates, would you prefer the government leave all areas of food production alone to self-regulate? imagining food coming from un-regulated produces is not too difficult. How about those tainted and corrupted products from China. Those come from a system with little or no governmental regulation. Think that would be a better way?

[Guest]

And all that lawyer double talk doesn't change the fact one iota, that ONLY the gov't can prosecute.

Lobbyists can complain until the cows come home. But unless the state takes it up, nobody gets prosecuted. Plain and simple.

Nice try though.

[bonnie]

And all that lawyer double talk doesn't change the fact one iota, that ONLY the gov't can prosecute.

Lobbyists can complain until the cows come home. But unless the state takes it up, nobody gets prosecuted. Plain and simple.

Nice try though.

Get with the program RLH

Interesting description of a felony tho don't you think?

Regardless the lobby groups don't prosecute.

Very few farmers sell raw milk and don't force anyone to buy from them thinking it is a pasteurized product,same can't be said for peanut butter you buy in the store. From the news it appears you have far more threat when you buy those products you have been led to belief are produced according to stringent rules and regulations than the few families that purchase raw milk

But of course the implication in the reply is that you want a rules free society.

[Neil D]

But unless the state takes it up, nobody gets prosecuted. Plain and simple.

Tain't that plain and simple.....

Why would the state take it up? Why would they prosecute?

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: RLH

But unless the state takes it up, nobody gets prosecuted. Plain and simple.

Tain't that plain and simple.....

Why would the state take it up? Why would they prosecute?

Why would the state prosecute???

Hmmm....maybe it's because the State's intimate bed partner Big Business stroked the State just right?

[Neil D]

Why would the state prosecute???

Hmmm....maybe it's because the State's intimate bed partner Big Business stroked the State just right?

Oh, really????

PLease excuse my reflecting of your words....and RLH...and Bonnie...and Joeb

So, what you are saying is that the State enforces the standards that big business recommends assumably for the public's good ....Right?

Am I to conclude that we AGREE?

[bonnie]

Why would the state take it up? Why would they prosecute?

Why would the state prosecute???

Hmmm....maybe it's because the State's intimate bed partner Big Business stroked the State just right?

While I am sure the dairy industry could have a impact,U.S.D.A/FDA are the ones responsible for the guidelines.

Generally there is not enough sellers of "raw milk" to impact the dairy industry.

Those that produce milk the "legal way" are not nearly as sanitary as those that sell organic raw milk.

Animals that produce food should be tested for diseases,I don't think anyone disputes that.

Meat of any kind,eggs,raw vegetables carry a far greater risk.

Yet,selling beef/meat off the farm is not considered illegal or threatening

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Why would the state take it up? Why would they prosecute?

Why would the state prosecute???

Hmmm....maybe it's because the State's intimate bed partner Big Business stroked the State just right?

While I am sure the dairy industry could have a impact,U.S.D.A/FDA are the ones responsible for the guidelines.

Generally there is not enough sellers of "raw milk" to impact the dairy industry.

Those that produce milk the "legal way" are not nearly as sanitary as those that sell organic raw milk.

Animals that produce food should be tested for diseases,I don't think anyone disputes that.

Meat of any kind,eggs,raw vegetables carry a far greater risk.

Yet,selling beef/meat off the farm is not considered illegal or threatening

The instances of someone getting sick from raw milk are very few a far between. The people we got raw milk from, for free by the way, was milked into an open bucket by hand and carried in that bucket through the barn and into the house. No one ever got sick from it, and these people had been drinking this milk produced like this for more than 10 years, from two different cows.

The threat is waaay overstated. I've gotten food poisoning from fast food several times, and those restaurants are highly regulated. Government is never the answer.

[Guest]

Neil, you stated that it was NOT the gov't that prosecuted. Even though it says right in what you quoted, that it was the gov't. Hence the remark about reading comprehension.

It's an "industry lobbying group" that prosecuted...not the government

[bonnie]

Serve with that dangerous raw cream that rises to the top[/

Hepatitis A Outbreak Linked To Townsend Farms Frozen Berries From Costco

May 31, 2013 3:39 PM

DENVER (CBS4)- Some 30 cases of hepatitis A have been reported in Colorado and four other states that have been linked to frozen mixed berries purchased from Costco.

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment is investigating along with the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration in an outbreak of hepatitis A cases believed to be associated with Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend of frozen berries.

The first people became ill on April 29 and the most recent on May 21. Five of these cases are Colorado residents. The number of cases in Colorado and in this outbreak may change, because on average it takes 30 days to become ill with hepatitis A after eating contaminated food.

Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend frozen berries purchased from Costco appear to be the source of this outbreak. This blend includes cherries, blueberries, pomegranate seeds, raspberries and strawberries. Costco has removed this product from its shelves, although a formal recall has not been issued.

FDA is further investigating this product, including testing berries for the hepatitis A virus. The investigation may take several weeks to complete.

The Colorado cases reside in the Adams, Boulder, Clear Creek, Eagle and Jefferson counties. Three women and two men have become ill. They range in age from 35 to 71 years.

The state health department is asking people to check their freezers. If you have the product, dispose of it. Do not eat it.

The risk of contracting hepatitis A from eating these berries is low. However, if you have eaten Townsend Farms Organic Antioxidant Blend frozen berries during the past 14 days, contact your medical provider for an immunization. If you do not have a medical provider, contact your local health department.

The hepatitis A vaccine can prevent infection if given within 14 days of exposure. Some people should receive immune globulin instead of the hepatitis A vaccine. If you ate these berries within the past 14 days please discuss with your doctor whether you should receive the hepatitis A vaccine or immune globulin. If you have received hepatitis A vaccine in the past, you do not need to be re-vaccinated.

If it has been more than 14 days since you have eaten these berries, the vaccine won’t be effective preventing infection. Please monitor for symptoms and contact your physician if you become ill.

Early signs of hepatitis A appear two to six weeks after exposure. Symptoms commonly include mild fever, loss of appetite, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, pain in the upper right side of the abdomen, dark urine and jaundice (yellow eyes or skin). It is very important if you have these symptoms that you do not go to work, especially if you work in food service, health care or child care.

The disease varies in severity, with mild cases lasting two weeks or less and more severe cases lasting four to six weeks or longer. Hepatitis A infection can be severe and can result in hospitalization. Some individuals, especially children, may not develop jaundice and may have an illness so mild it can go unnoticed. However, even mildly ill people can be highly infectious. People with symptoms suggestive of hepatitis should consult a physician immediately, even if symptoms are mild.

Hepatitis A virus is spread as a result of fecal contamination (fecal-oral route) and may be spread from person to person through close contact or through food handling. The virus is commonly spread by contaminated food or beverages. People are at increased risk of acquiring hepatitis A when they have been in close contact with an infected person.

For more information, please see the CDC website at http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/Choosea.htm or call COHelp at 1-877-462-2911.

[Guest]

Remind me not to buy any berries at costco. :)

[bonnie]

Remind me not to buy any berries at costco.

Hepatitis is nasty.Hepatitis A isn't as severe as some forms but not something you want to have

[Ted Oplinger]

Originally Posted By: Ted Oplinger

Why would the state prosecute???

Hmmm....maybe it's because the State's intimate bed partner Big Business stroked the State just right?

Oh, really????

PLease excuse my reflecting of your words....and RLH...and Bonnie...and Joeb

So, what you are saying is that the State enforces the standards that big business recommends assumably for the public's good ....Right?

Am I to conclude that we AGREE?

Ah, no, Neil.

Big Business lobbies the Big Government to prosecute, and because Big Government's pols love the money and gifts Big Business showers over them, Big Government does Big Business' bidding by going after Small business, who doesn't have that "special relationship" with Big Government that Big Business does...because both the Bigs are bed partners who mutually please one another.

Big Business love having Big Government around, to eliminate the competition, and Big Government loves Big Business, in that Big Business can afford to keep Big Government well-monied.

Neither work for the public's good, Neil.

In the Wisconsin dairy case; the farmer was not pawning off raw milk as a pasteurized product (against state and federal regs); he sold clearly communicated raw milk.

He also didn't sell to the general public; he sold only to a select clientele who knew exactly what they were buying, and were buying it specifically because it was raw.

Big Dairy thought this might be an idea which could eventually undercut its pasteurized milk business; thus, it was deemed necessary to step upon freely conducted business "in the name of public safety"...which was demonstrated was a crock of a motive in the first place, so then the production license angle was tried. Again, this was rejected by the people.

Neil, you really don't understand the true nature of the relationship between big business...each and every Big Business...and your beloved Big Government, do you?

Later,

[Neil D]

Neil, you stated that it was NOT the gov't that prosecuted. Even though it says right in what you quoted, that it was the gov't. Hence the remark about reading comprehension.

Yet, I was speaking to the issue, what the ...well, let me quote again what I was trying to point out-

the Journal article notes it is being lobbied to do so by the “Wisconsin Safe Milk Coalition,” an industry lobbying group that doesn’t like competition from raw milk farms and so is trying to bully them

See, that's the difference between you and me.....I was speaking to the issue of who...yOu, on the other hand, was trying to be a troll, in internet lingo...You were trying to make snide remarks about me...and this is the difference between you and me...You don't like what someone says and you try to destroy him on the internet...to make his words and his point of no effect.....The trouble is Richard, is that people are smarter than you give them credit for...They know the troll when they see one...

I'm glad that you are not willing to argue the issue....because if you don't really know, you have no other choice than to destroy the messenger...that is...if you don't like the message that is out there for discussion....