93.
Judge: Americans Don’t Have Right to Drink Cow Milk
No “Fundamental Right to Produce and Consume Foods”
By Raven Clabough, New American, 29 September 2011
In a court case sure to go down in history for one of the most bizarre rulings, a Wisconsin judge has held that American citizens do not have a “fundamental right to produce or consume foods of their choice.” The decision was so shocking that the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund asked the judge to issue a clarification of the ruling.
Judge Fiedler went on to clarify his ruling further:
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
“no, the … Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”
The case involved people who owned cows and sought to board them at a farm. As noted by Foolocracy.com, “Although the commercial relationship between the owner of the cow and owner of the land gives cause for the state to intervene, Fiedler took his ruling into a more personal and troubling direction.”
Judge Fiedler went on to clarify his ruling further:
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;
“no, the … Plaintiffs’ private contract does not fall outside the scope of the State’s police power;
“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”
The case involved people who owned cows and sought to board them at a farm. As noted by Foolocracy.com, “Although the commercial relationship between the owner of the cow and owner of the land gives cause for the state to intervene, Fiedler took his ruling into a more personal and troubling direction.”
The plaintiffs in the case argued that their right to privacy should also translate into the right to “consume food of his/her own choice.”
Judge Patrick Fiedler remained unconvinced, claiming that the constitutionality of food rights is “wholly without merit.” He added that the plaintiffs’ use of the Roe v Wade case as a precedent does “not explain why a woman’s right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk…. This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to
consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides
of the issue.”
While some of the points put forward by the judge are reasonable to an extent, points two and five are particularly disturbing to constitutionalists, as they propose severe limitations on personal rights.
A person growing a tomato plant in his or her home and choosing to eat that tomato would seem to have that right. Frighteningly, Fiedler thinks otherwise.
It seems Judge Fiedler believes that food consumption is one of those rights that are not God-given but rather granted by the state.
Judge Patrick Fiedler remained unconvinced, claiming that the constitutionality of food rights is “wholly without merit.” He added that the plaintiffs’ use of the Roe v Wade case as a precedent does “not explain why a woman’s right to have an abortion translates to a right to consume unpasteurized milk…. This court is unwilling to declare that there is a fundamental right to
consume the food of one’s choice without first being presented with significantly more developed arguments on both sides
of the issue.”
While some of the points put forward by the judge are reasonable to an extent, points two and five are particularly disturbing to constitutionalists, as they propose severe limitations on personal rights.
A person growing a tomato plant in his or her home and choosing to eat that tomato would seem to have that right. Frighteningly, Fiedler thinks otherwise.
It seems Judge Fiedler believes that food consumption is one of those rights that are not God-given but rather granted by the state.
Some analysts believe that such increased food regulations are being proposed because big agriculture fears competition from little producers, and therefore uses lobbyists to virtually eliminate small family farms that have been successful outside of the mainstream. Interestingly, those involved in large-scale agriculture are already the beneficiaries of massive government subsidies.
Evidence of federal government pressure that will affect small family farms more than large-scale agriculture can be found in recent regulations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Transportation. The regulations reclassify farm vehicles and implements, and require all farm workers to meet the same set of requirements that over-the-road truck drivers do. Such a regulatory burden would be felt much more significantly by small family farms than by large ones.
Regulations are beginning to have an impact on nearly every aspect of food consumption in the United States. In Oregon, for example, Multnomah County inspectors recently targeted a lemonade stand for operating without a license and threatened to fine the “seven-year-old” operator $500.
Evidence of federal government pressure that will affect small family farms more than large-scale agriculture can be found in recent regulations from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, an arm of the Department of Transportation. The regulations reclassify farm vehicles and implements, and require all farm workers to meet the same set of requirements that over-the-road truck drivers do. Such a regulatory burden would be felt much more significantly by small family farms than by large ones.
Regulations are beginning to have an impact on nearly every aspect of food consumption in the United States. In Oregon, for example, Multnomah County inspectors recently targeted a lemonade stand for operating without a license and threatened to fine the “seven-year-old” operator $500.
Driving at breakneck speed. And then what is the business? Searching out some means of food, exactly like the hog, he is loitering here and there, “Where is stool? Where is stool? Where is stool?” And this is going on in the polished way as civilization. There is so much risk, as running these cars so many people are dying. There is record, it is very dangerous. At least I feel as soon as I go to the street, it is dangerous. The motorcar are running so speedy, and what is the business? The business is where to find out food. So therefore it is condemned that this kind of civilization is hoggish civilization. This hog is running after, “Where is stool? And you are running in a car. Purpose is the same: Therefore this is not advancement of civilization. Advancement of civilization is, as Krsna advises, that you require food, so produce food grain. Remain wherever you are. You can produce food grain anywhere, a little labor. And keep cows, go-raksya, krsi-go-raksya vanijyam vaisya-karma svabhava-jam [Bg. 18.44]. Solve your problem like... Produce your food wherever you are there. Till little, little labor, and you will get your whole year’s food. And distribute the food to the animal, cow, and eat yourself. The cow will eat the refuse. You take the rice, and the skin you give to the cow. From dahl you take the grain, and the skin you give to the... And fruit, you take the fruit, and the skin you give to the cow, and he will give you milk. So why should you kill her? Milk is the miraculous food; therefore Krsna says cow protection. Give protection to the cow, take milk from it, and eat food grains -- your food problem is solved. Where is food problem? Why should you invent such civilization always full of anxieties, running the car here and there, and fight with other nation, and economic development? What is this civilization?
— Srila Prabhupada (Philosophical discussion)
Likewise, the Food and Drug Administration has turned its attention to Amish milk, setting up a sting operation to stop Rainbow Acres Farm from selling unpasteurized milk in the Washington area.
The Obama administration signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which, as noted by the Heritage Foundation, would “authorize the FDA to dictate how farmers grow fruits and vegetables, including rules governing soil, water, hygiene, packing, temperatures, and even what animals may roam which fields and when.” The act also “increases inspections of food facilities and taxes them to do so … and grants the FDA unilateral authority to order recalls.”
The Obama administration signed the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, which, as noted by the Heritage Foundation, would “authorize the FDA to dictate how farmers grow fruits and vegetables, including rules governing soil, water, hygiene, packing, temperatures, and even what animals may roam which fields and when.” The act also “increases inspections of food facilities and taxes them to do so … and grants the FDA unilateral authority to order recalls.”
Now, Fiedler’s ruling opens the door for the need for “plant police” to help enforce restrictions on the personal use and growing of vegetables.
Groups of citizens around the country are beginning to recognize how federal government regulations are infringing on their personal rights, and as a result, have launched a counter-attack.
In Sedgwick, Maine, for example, approximately 100 residents unanimously approved a food sovereignty initiative at a March 5 town meeting, which permits food producers in the town to sell food without federal and state regulatory interference. Entitled “The Ordinance to Protect the Health and Integrity of the Local Food System,” the four-page document invoked the town’s right to self-governance and states that local producers and processors may sell food to consumers without licensing.
A number of other towns in Hancock County have elected to follow Sedgwick’s example.
Still, there is more to be done for Americans to shake the shackles of federal regulations. Prison Planet asserts that citizens should be more vigilant and publicize the issues in blogs, on the web, and via letters to their representatives and local newspapers, even calling for an end to subsidies to all industries. It adds that Americans should be supporting their local farmers.
However, given that humans have farmed, and drunk the milk from their dairy animals, for more than 5,000 years, the breadth of the court’s ruling has astonished many.
As the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concedes, not all the rights of people are written out, providing that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In spite of this, Judge Fiedler has made several blanket denials of civil rights, based on his argument that the Plaintiffs’ “reasoning behind why the court should declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice” is “underdeveloped.”
Indeed, it is an emphatic decision, with its point-by-point denial of all of the rights asserted by the farmers and their shareholders.
Groups of citizens around the country are beginning to recognize how federal government regulations are infringing on their personal rights, and as a result, have launched a counter-attack.
In Sedgwick, Maine, for example, approximately 100 residents unanimously approved a food sovereignty initiative at a March 5 town meeting, which permits food producers in the town to sell food without federal and state regulatory interference. Entitled “The Ordinance to Protect the Health and Integrity of the Local Food System,” the four-page document invoked the town’s right to self-governance and states that local producers and processors may sell food to consumers without licensing.
A number of other towns in Hancock County have elected to follow Sedgwick’s example.
Still, there is more to be done for Americans to shake the shackles of federal regulations. Prison Planet asserts that citizens should be more vigilant and publicize the issues in blogs, on the web, and via letters to their representatives and local newspapers, even calling for an end to subsidies to all industries. It adds that Americans should be supporting their local farmers.
However, given that humans have farmed, and drunk the milk from their dairy animals, for more than 5,000 years, the breadth of the court’s ruling has astonished many.
As the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution concedes, not all the rights of people are written out, providing that the “enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
In spite of this, Judge Fiedler has made several blanket denials of civil rights, based on his argument that the Plaintiffs’ “reasoning behind why the court should declare that there is a fundamental right to consume the food of one’s choice” is “underdeveloped.”
Indeed, it is an emphatic decision, with its point-by-point denial of all of the rights asserted by the farmers and their shareholders.
Judge On His Way Out
Even before his ruling, Judge Fiedler was scheduled to step down from his post. “I wanted to go back to being an advocate and being a lawyer,” he said. He is slated to work as a trial lawyer with the Axley Brynelson law firm.
Incidently this firm also represents Monsanto.
Incidently this firm also represents Monsanto.
