Context reveals part of the logic here, that being that the plaintiffs wished to drink raw milk, and the state insists that no one may do this. Pasteurization is mandatory. Raw milk can carry a list of diseases and bacteria, and bovine tuberculosis is contagious. To that end, requiring pasturization to protect the public health makes sense.As if to show how pissed he was at being questioned, he said his decision translates further that "no, Plaintiffs to 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;"
And in a kind of exclamation point, he added this to his list of no-nos: "no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice..."
Judge Patrick J. Fiedler
As to the rest of the position, this looks like a classic case of Wily Coyote running off the edge of a high cliff without noticing his error. At least not immediately.
1 comment:
Hmm. And here I thought that any rights no reserved to the Federal Government, the state and local governments, devolved onto the citizens themselves.
The raw milk thing has been going around a long time. Basically, the dairy industry resents small herds, they don't make any money picking up less than a semi-load a day. But they don't want the competition, either.
There are issues with raw milk. But most are manageable, and most raw milk providers and users are aware of the risks and eager for the benefits. Raw milk by definition is going to be a local, small time operation. Transport to dairies and stores, let alone shelf life, mean that it will be consumed quickly or not at all. Notice, next time you watch Fiddler on the Roof, how most of the folk aren't sick, and they get the non-pasteurized milk in a cup from a can from the morning's milking.
This is a case where the dairy industry would like to have done what Monsanto did, and patent cows milk so they get royalties off everyone.
Post a Comment