Dr Ron Paul on Raw Milk Freedom

[Cindy]

I know the system has its flaws, but mass food production feeds the masses conveniently and cheaply, and it evolved in response to a legitimate need. Yes, it got out of hand. And yes, it turned eating into a very weird thing. But it was a sensible solution in its time. And it played a huge part in making this country one of the most successful nations in the world. That said, now that we see the negative consequences (obesity, heart disease, and even a tragic disconnect with the natural world), we need to think again about those small farmers and what they can do. I'd like to see a balance myself--take advantage of science when it makes sense, but just grow stuff too. Keep it simple when we can.

Cindy

[steve74baywin]

I know the system has its flaws, but mass food production feeds the masses conveniently and cheaply, and it evolved in response to a legitimate need. Yes, it got out of hand. And yes, it turned eating into a very weird thing. But it was a sensible solution in its time. And it played a huge part in making this country one of the most successful nations in the world. That said, now that we see the negative consequences (obesity, heart disease, and even a tragic disconnect with the natural world), we need to think again about those small farmers and what they can do. I'd like to see a balance myself--take advantage of science when it makes sense, but just grow stuff too. Keep it simple when we can.

Cindy

Excellent points.
Mass food production, let it thrive, it can be a thing of great good.
As people learn, let them make choices to eat better, what ever way they currently think is better.
Growing and providing for ones self, and or locally for locals, also a great thing, enough can't be said about that.
Balance, a little of this, a little of that. Those wanting fast and convenient, okay for them, those wanting healthier, organic foods, good for them.
The only problems in this whole thing seems to be the FBI raiding the Amish farmer who sold raw milk to a willing buyer.

[Velokid1]

The only problems in this whole thing seems to be the FBI raiding the Amish farmer who sold raw milk to a willing buyer.

Amen.

[hambone]

That, and subtle corporate control. We are not serfs. Bob Marley said it best in various ways, don't take the shit.

[Randy in Maine]

You peple do know of course that it was not really the FBI (that raided the milk guy in PA selling milk to MD), it was the Food and Drug Administration....at least know some of the facts before you get yourself in a snit. Just becasue Faux NEws reported that does not make it true.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... k-locally/

[Velokid1]

Makes no difference to me. If a government entity- federal state or municipal -is busting people who are producing food naturally and locally (i.e. responsibly) and providing it to people who want it, it's wrong.

And indirectly, it serves the mass food production industry who are all too happy to see our individual food-production abilities squashed.

[Randy in Maine]

Makes no difference to me. If a government entity- federal state or municipal -is busting people who are producing food naturally and locally (i.e. responsibly) and providing it to people who want it, it's wrong.

What about tainted food that makes people sick or dead or food that is not safely prepared? Is that also wrong?

Personally I prefer food (notably tomatoes) that is grown organically and fresh in my garden, but that is not an option for everyone. I prefer a little real dirt on mine also.

I have never seen any sort of reference that anyone at any level of government (federal to local) wishes to limit your ability to grow a garden for your own consumption. However if you wish to sell to anyone anywhere commercially (and in this case out of state), you need to meet or exceed the standards that everyone else has to, to ensure what you are selling is indeed "safe". Everyone has to play by the same rules.

[Velokid1]

I didn't realize that the guy in question was selling milk across state lines without any kind of permit. I should read the whole story and stop being so... velokid-ish. If he was selling at farmer's markets or the like, I call bullshit. But if he had an operation big enough that he could have easily afforded the licensing process, shame on him.

The definition of safe is messed up though.

Big corporations can make and sell food that has dangers more long-lasting and serious than, say, food poisoning, which is the only real danger of most locally produced foods, and yet they aren't only able to sell their food, they are subsidized by taxpayer money.

What about tainted food that makes people sick or dead or food that is not safely prepared? Is that also wrong?

It's wrong, but "less wrong" when compared to the foods that routinely get the FDA's approval. I think there's a problem of absolutism at work here (if I'm using that word correctly). As you said, the truth is almost always somewhere in the middle, but there is no middle these days. Either something is officially 100% safe (!)... or it's branded as Dangerous(!). And then there's the problem that so many things that we are expected to assume are 100% safe because they have been given the official stamp of approval from the appropriate regulatory agency (EPA, FDA, whoever regulates automobiles, etc etc) are really quite unsafe.

That's one thing I do love about Arizona's libertarian bent... there's a lady without a permit who sells eggs once a week outside of my wife's health food store, off the street. Nobody bothers her. And they shouldn't. Their eggs, for godsake. People die occasionally from salmonella, but they die every day from, say, automobiles or prescription drugs.

The stamp of approval from the FDA means nothing to me.

[RussellK]

Interesting discussion. Greg you used the word responsibly in your post. Isn't it an appropriate function of the FDA to be sure a seller is indeed a responsible grower/seller? Is this much different from a municipal health department that inspects and rates eating establishments.

[Lanval]

I'll go a step further; the idea that the FDA or any other gov't organization is acting outside of our best interests generally is wrong. The FDA and other exist explicitly because the old system used to be: whatever is OK. There were no groups watching to verify quality, truth in advertising or whatever. You were on your own to investigate claims. That turned out to be difficult, so the good people of the US voted to regulatory groups who were specifically tasked with creating governing rules for those who wanted to engage in economic practice (note how much freedom is contained in other unregulated groups ~ religion for example. You can do anything pretty much, call it religion and get away with it. The only group who even bothers checking up on people in this regard is the IRS).

The explicit goal of these efforts was not to limit the freedoms of those who want to sell milk (or whatever else) but to make those who do so be open and honest about what they're doing so we can be sure our milk isn't laced with, oh, I don't know, Melamine. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Now, before somebody jumps on me; yes, the groups in question don't always work in our best interests. Sometimes they're too rigid. That's a people problem; people are greedy. People are vacuous. People make mistakes. Unless you have a better version of people (People 2.0! Now with more melamine!), then that's going to be the case whether you have these gov't groups or not.

So, to recap: The system isn't perfect, but is designed to protect.

Mike

[BellePlaine]

The explicit goal of these efforts was not to limit the freedoms of those who want to sell milk (or whatever else) but to make those who do so be open and honest about what they're doing so we can be sure our milk isn't laced with, oh, I don't know, Melamine. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_milk_scandal

Mike

It's already been acknowledged that the system is not perfect, so I will try not to belabor the point. However, we must regulate the regulators if the goal is to shine a light of openness and honesty into the food industry. Career Monsanto men holding key appointments in the agency gives the illusion of protection but it's like the adage, the fox guarding the hen house. We might be worse off.

Added: Speaking of milk, doesn't the FDA still approve of rBGH?

[Velokid1]

Interesting discussion. Greg you used the word responsibly in your post. Isn't it an appropriate function of the FDA to be sure a seller is indeed a responsible grower/seller? Is this much different from a municipal health department that inspects and rates eating establishments.

I think you and Lanval are saying the same thing that I am, but I am taking it one step further.

I am not an anti-regulation person. Not in the least.

I AM a anti-corrupt-regulation person. And where there is money and profit involved, you can expect the regulators to be corrupt.

BP made the point already: Montsanto execs serving at the FDA. That ridiculous theme is repeated across the board in every goddamned regulatory agency in our country. If you have a single oil man on your staff at the EPA, your EPA just lost all credibility in my eyes.

So yes, the FDA should be making sure that a seller is responsible... but the moment they enforce that in regards to something as silly as a couple people MAYBE getting food poisoning from some raw milk but then DON'T enforce it when it comes to companies using HFCS or growth hormones in milk, they have lost all credibility. To me, anyway. But I'm a judgmental arsehole.

[Randy in Maine]

Are you referring to this guy?

"A former lawyer with Monsanto Co. has been hired as an adviser at theU.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Michael Taylor, who worked as Monsanto’s former vice president for public policy for two years until 2000, will advise Commissioner of Food and Drugs Margaret Hamburg, the FDA said Tuesday.

Taylor also worked as a food safety expert and research professor at George Washington University.

Hamburg said Taylor would work with her office and with the management of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Center for Veterinary Medicine, the Office of Regulatory Affairs, Congress and with members of the Obama Administration.

Taylor first worked for the FDA in 1976 as a litigating attorney. He then served as the FDA’s deputy commissioner for policy from 1991 to 1994, overseeing the FDA's policy development and rulemaking, including the implementation of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and issuance of new seafood safety rules."

Sounds like he is more or a former FDA man to me....

[RussellK]

BP made the point already: Montsanto execs serving at the FDA. That ridiculous theme is repeated across the board in every goddamned regulatory agency in our country. If you have a single oil man on your staff at the EPA, your EPA just lost all credibility in my eyes.

By your measuring stick having served in the trucking industry for nearly 40 years would preclude me from working for the FMCSA. Never mind I strongly opposed the change in the HOS rule increasing on duty time, any easing of Motor Carrier entry requirements and heartily endorsed the CSA2010 rule that makes motor carriers responsible for their driver's bad behavior. Are you suggesting my trucking experience makes me myopic? And why would one leave a lucrative career to become an agency employee? Because public service is such a better gig than private sector? I suspect many, no not all but many, know something about their respective industries and want to make it better.

[Lanval]

BP made the point already: Montsanto execs serving at the FDA. That ridiculous theme is repeated across the board in every goddamned regulatory agency in our country. If you have a single oil man on your staff at the EPA, your EPA just lost all credibility in my eyes.

By your measuring stick having served in the trucking industry for nearly 40 years would preclude me from working for the FMCSA. Never mind I strongly opposed the change in the HOS rule increasing on duty time, any easing of Motor Carrier entry requirements and heartily endorsed the CSA2010 rule that makes motor carriers responsible for their driver's bad behavior. Are you suggesting my trucking experience makes me myopic? And why would one leave a lucrative career to become an agency employee? Because public service is such a better gig than private sector? I suspect many, no not all but many, know something about their respective industries and want to make it better.

I agree here; the real problem is probably transparency, the appearance of being honest. As long as we can observe and understand how decisions are made, we're in a position of strength as citizens. I do not appreciate the ever-increasing insistence on gov't secrecy, which many push for, even when blatantly not in the interests of the people. Oversight goes along with the job.

That said, we have to expect that people from the industry will populate regulatory agencies ~ they have the most practical knowledge. Would you accept a driving instructor who had never driven a car? Likewise, regulatory agencies need the insight of experienced people to understand how things work, and what to watch for. Nothing else is realistic. Thus the need for transparency. We, the citizens, are supposed to watch the watchers. That's how this democratic experiment works.

Mike