|
|
Direct from the Source
A legal brief
filed in a federal court dispute over the
purchase and use of raw ilk contends the court
ultimately will determine "whether the people control
the government, or whether the government
controls the people."
"The decision of this court will either
ensure that people have fundamental rights endowed to them by their Creator, or
that the people have no rights except those that are conferred upon them by
government," attorneys for the
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund have argued in their newest brief, which
opposes the government's demand that the case be dismissed.
"Our research shows that this nation has a
long history of consuming raw dairy products and that FDA's prohibition against
taking raw dairy for human consumption across state lines runs counter to that
national history," said fund President Pete Kennedy.
to allegations by the FDA, everyone has the
right to travel across state lines with raw dairy products in their possession,
that everyone has the right to consume the foods of their choice, that parents
have the right to feed their children the foods of their choice and that all
have the right to be responsible for their own health.
"We believe we are breaking new ground in
this case," said Gary Cox, the fund's general counsel. "Yet in a way, we are
really asking the court to expressly recognize what our Founding Fathers implied
in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution."
The Farm-to-Consumer organization brought the
lawsuit earlier this year to overturn the federal ban that prohibits raw milk
for human consumption in interstate commerce. The lawsuit alleges the federal
rules on the issue are unconstitutional and outside the FDA's statutory
authority as applied to members of the group.
The brief cites the damages that have been
sustained by those who choose a natural food – raw milk – rather than the
processed and packaged product produced by huge corporations that sits on store
shelves.
One plaintiff in the case is
More than 100 gallons of milk soaked into the
More of the episode was caught here:
The legal argument contends Wagoner was
deprived of his own property when the raw milk was destroyed.
In the
government's earlier motion to dismiss, its lawyers argued Americans have no
fundamental right to choose what food they can have.
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical
tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the
document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose,
assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of
Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental
right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do
and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly
unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food
they wish," the government has argued.
The new brief from the Farm-to-Consumer
organization contends government over the years has infringed on many God-given
rights, such as slavery and the ban on interracial marriage.
"Currently, unfortunately, government is
telling its citizens that they do not have the right to travel across state
lines with raw dairy products in their possession; that individuals do not have
the right to a healthy body; and that parents do not have the right to feed
themselves and their families the foods of their choice. This notion is
paternalistic and treats its citizens as wards of the state who are incapable of
making decisions for themselves," the Farm-to-Consumer brief states.
"This case is about liberty and freedom and
presents an issue of first impression in the federal courts that addresses this
current form of oppression. Plaintiffs represent the tipping point of a
food-rights movement that involves knowing one's source of food; becoming
responsible for what foods go into one's body; becoming responsible for one's
health; ensuring that one's family and children grow up healthy with an
excellent immune system; and engaging in conduct with similar like-minded
individuals to promote a healthier and happier America."
The focal point is a set of FDA regulations
that largely ban consumers from buying raw milk and taking it across state
lines, even for their own consumption.
"FDA's regulatory program has no
application to a private group of citizens who have
opted out of the industrial food system and choose to consume raw dairy products
provided to them directly by a farmer, with no commingling or processing, in
direct, private transactions," the brief states.
WND has
reported several times on fed crackdowns on producers of raw milk for friends
and neighbors, including the recent case when agents arrived to inspect a
private property belonging to Dan Allgyer in
The
incident was followed by a report a few days later of a proposal in Congress
that critics say would do for the nation's food supply what the new
health-care-reform law has done for health-care resources.
"S. 510, the
Food Safety Modernization Act of 2010, may be the most dangerous bill in the
history of the
The plan is sponsored by
U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who
explains the legislation "is a critical step toward equipping the FDA with the
authorities and funding it needs to regulate what is now a global marketplace
for food, drugs, devices and cosmetics."
His website explains, "The legislation
requires foreign and domestic food facilities to have safety plans in place to
prevent food hazards before they occur, increases the frequency of inspections.
Additionally, it provides strong, flexible enforcement tools, including
mandatory recall."
The proposal cleared the U.S. House last year
but has been languishing in the Senate because of a full calendar of
legislation. It creates a long list of new requirements for food-producing
entities to meet the demands of the secretary of agriculture.
It is expected to be the subject of discussion in coming days.