Food Freedom Wins

Joel Walbert

Jul 03, 2023

Buy Me a Coffee

Source: The 10th Amendment Center

Now in Effect: Idaho Law Expands Raw Milk Sales in the State

By: Mike Maharrey

Jul 2, 2023

BOISE, Idaho (July 2, 2023) – Yesterday an Idaho law that lifts some restrictions on herd share agreements for the distribution of raw milk in the state went into effect. The passage of this bill into law takes a small step toward rejecting a federal prohibition scheme in practice and effect.

The Senate Agricultural Affairs Committee introduced Senate Bill 1036 (S1036) on Jan. 31. The new law simplifies current state law on herd share agreements for the acquisition of raw milk and removes limits on the number of animals allowed in a shared herd. It also eliminates some of the current regulations on farms hosting shared herds.

“The acquisition of raw milk or raw milk products from cows, sheep, or goats by an owner of a cow share, sheep share, or goat share for use or consumption by the owner or members of the owner’s household shall not constitute the sale or retail sale of raw milk or raw milk products and shall not be prohibited. The owner of a cow share, sheep share, or goat share shall receive raw milk or raw milk products directly from the farm or dairy where the cow, sheep, goat, or dairy herd is located. Such farm or dairy shall be registered.”

In effect, the changes in the law will facilitate herd shares and make it easier for people willing to pay another individual for the upkeep of milk-producing livestock to share raw milk and other things produced from the raw milk of those shared animals.

The House passed S1036 by a 63-5 vote. The Senate approved the measure by a 34-0 vote. With Gov. Little’s signature, the law went into effect on July 1.

The enactment of S1036 takes another small step toward opening the market for unpasteurized milk in the state. While limited in nature, allowing raw milk distribution through herd sharing creates a great opportunity to establish a market, and will demonstrate and stimulate demand for raw milk. Eliminating restrictions and regulations will allow more people to take advantage of herd shares in the state. As more people engage in the marketplace, more people will learn about the benefits of unpasteurized milk. That stimulates demand. Simply cracking the door can begin a sort of economic feedback loop that will rapidly expand the market. When that happens, lawmakers will feel pressure to further loosen regulations.

IMPACT ON FEDERAL PROHIBITION

FDA officials insist that unpasteurized milk poses a health risk because of its susceptibility to contamination from cow manure, a source of E. coli.

“It is the FDA’s position that raw milk should never be consumed,” agency spokeswoman Tamara N. Ward said in November 2011.

The FDA’s position represents more than a matter of opinion. In 1987, the feds implemented 21 CFR 1240.61(a), providing that, “no person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption unless the product has been pasteurized.”

Not only do the feds ban the transportation of raw milk across state lines; they also claim the authority to ban unpasteurized milk within the borders of a state.

“It is within HHS’s authority…to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well,” FDA officials wrote in response to a Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawsuit against the agency over the interstate ban.

The FDA clearly wants a complete prohibition of raw milk and some insiders say it’s only a matter of time before the feds try to institute an absolute ban. Armed raids by FDA agents on companies like Rawsome Foods back in 2011 and Amish farms over the last few years also indicate this scenario may not be too far off.

When states allow the sale of raw milk within their borders, it takes an important step toward nullifying this federal prohibition scheme.

As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, an intrastate ban becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages the market and nullifies federal prohibition in effect.

We’ve seen this demonstrated dramatically in states that have legalized industrial hemp. When they authorized production, farmers began growing industrial hemp, even in the face of a federal ban. Despite facing the possibility of federal prosecution, some growers were still willing to step into the void and begin cultivating the plant once the state removed its barriers.

In the same way, removing state barriers to raw milk consumption, sale and production would undoubtedly spur the creation of new markets for unpasteurized dairy products, no matter what the feds claim the power to do.

It could ultimately nullify the interstate ban as well. If all 50 states allow raw milk, markets within the states could easily grow to the point that local sales would render the federal ban on interstate commerce pointless. And history indicates the feds do not have the resources to stop people from transporting raw milk across state lines – especially if multiple states start legalizing it. Growing markets will quickly overwhelm any federal enforcement attempts.

About Author:

Mike Maharrey [send him email] is the Communications Director for the Tenth Amendment Center. He is from the original home of the Principles of '98 - Kentucky and currently resides in northern Florida. See his blog archive here and his article archive here.He is the author of the book, Our Last Hope: Rediscovering the Lost Path to Liberty., and Constitution Owner's Manual. You can visit his personal website at MichaelMaharrey.com and like him on Facebook HERE

Buy Me a Coffee

The Truth Addict Newsletter

Raw Milk Revisted

The Truth Addict Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber (~$0.16/day…

2 years ago · 1 like

Source: The 10th Amendment Center

Now in Effect: Wyoming Law Expands Food Freedom Act, Opens Market to Small Egg and Dairy Producers

By: Mike Maharrey

Jul 2, 2023

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (July 2, 2023) – Yesterday, a Wyoming law went into effect that will further increase food freedom in the state, and potentially alleviate some of the recent price inflation on eggs and dairy.

Sen. Tim Salazar and 10 fellow cosponsors introduced Senate Bill 102 (SF102) on Jan. 12. The new law expands the Wyoming Food Freedom Act to allow a “designated agent” to “facilitate sales transactions” in the marketing, transport, storage, or delivery of food and beverage products. Under previous law, producers could only sell directly to consumers.

The new law will also add eggs and dairy products to the foods that can be sold at farmer’s markets, farms, ranches, producer’s homes or offices, and the retail location of the third-party sellers.

The House passed SF102 by a 62-0 vote. The Senate approved the measure by a 30-1 vote. With Gov. Mark Gordon’s signature, the law went into effect on July 1.

Expanding the market for eggs and dairy could provide some relief for Wyoming residents struggling to deal with price inflation. The price of both eggs and milk has increased precipitously over the last year. Opening up the market to more producers and sellers could help the people of Wyoming to get some relief from the money-printing frenzy of recent years.

WYOMING LEADS THE WAY

Wyoming was the first state to enact a comprehensive Food Freedom Act back in 2015. The law allows the sale of many foods and food products direct from the producer to the consumer without adhering to onerous state regulatory and licensing requirements. The expansive law even allows poultry farmers with fewer than 1,000 birds to sell chicken and turkey, along with products made from their birds outside of the regulatory system. It also authorizes the sale of raw milk, rabbit meat and most farm-raised fish.

In 2020, the state expanded food freedom to allow consumers to buy individual cuts of meat through herd-share agreements. The law is modeled on laws that allow the sale of raw milk in some states. Consumers pay the rancher a fee for a “share” in either an individual animal or a herd. In return, the consumer gets cuts of meat. A second expansion allows for the sale of “non-potentially hazardous” homemade foods to be sold in retail stores and restaurants. “Potentially-non hazardous foods are defined as ” food that does not require time or temperature control for safety and includes jams, uncut fruits and vegetables, pickled vegetables, hard candies, fudge, nut mixes, granola, dry soup mixes excluding meat-based soup mixes, coffee beans, popcorn and baked goods that do not include dairy or meat frosting or filling or other potentially hazardous frosting or filling.

Following Wyoming’s lead, North Dakota and Utah passed similar laws. In 2017, Maine enacted a law that gives local governments the authority to enact ordinances regulating local food distribution without state interference.

Food freedom laws not only open markets, expand consumer choice, and create opportunities for farmers and entrepreneurs; they take a step toward restoring the United States’ original political structure. Instead of top-down, centralized regulatory schemes, these laws encourage local control, and they can effectively nullify federal regulatory schemes in effect by hindering the enforcement of federal regulations.

Food freedom has flourished in these states with hundreds of local businesses sprouting up in recent years without a single report of foodborne illness.

FEDERAL CONTROL

While state law does not bind the FDA, the passage of food freedom laws creates an environment hostile to federal food regulation in those states. And because the state does not interfere with local food producers, that means it will not enforce FDA mandates either. Should the feds want to enforce food laws in states with food freedom laws, they have to do so by themselves.

As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway. The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”

Less restrictive food laws almost certainly have a similar impact on FDA regulation. They make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce their will within the state.

While FDA apologists claim the agency only wants to protect consumers, in truth, federal regulations tend to benefit big companies and squeeze out family farms. In the name of safety, FDA regulations limit your ability to access local, fresh food.

For example, the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 mandates meat must be slaughtered and processed at a federally inspected slaughterhouse, or one inspected in a state with meat inspection laws at least as strict as federal requirements. Small slaughterhouses cannot meet the requirements. As a result, the meat processing industry went through massive consolidation. Since the passage of the act, the number of slaughterhouses dropped from more than 10,000 to less than 3,000. Today, instead of hundreds of companies processing meat, three corporations control virtually the entire industry.

This does not promote food safety. In fact, by concentrating meat processing in a few facilities, the likelihood of widespread contamination increases. A single sick cow can infect thousands of pounds of beef in one of these corporate slaughterhouses. In a more diversified, decentralized system, outbreaks generally remain limited to small regions. You never saw these nationwide recalls in the era of diversified meat processing.

The Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) “directs FDA to build an integrated national food safety system in partnership with state and local authorities explicitly recognizing that all food safety agencies need to work in integrated ways to achieve public health goals.”

Essentially, this means dictating state food laws.

Constitutionally, food safety falls within the powers reserved to the states and the people. The feds have no authority to enforce food safety laws within the borders of a state. Food freedom laws undermine these federal regulatory schemes. Widespread adoption of food freedom, along with state and local refusal to enforce federal mandates, could make FDA regulations virtually impossible to enforce and nullify them in effect and practice.

About Author: