Wise Traditions UK - Traditional Nutrition Conference Video's.

[planning4acrash]

The Weston A Price Foundation promotes wise traditions in food, farming and the healing arts, challenging politically correct nutrition and the diet dictocrats. In particular, but not exclusively, they challenge the government's demonization of cholesterol and saturated fats, challenging their war on nutrient dense foods. Their website is westonaprice.org    The Foundation also runs the Campaign for Real Milk, promoting raw dairy against government oppression: realmilk.com

Wise Traditions UK was on March 21 2010 and attracted 250 people from throughout Europe and 14 exhibitors, including dairy farmers who sold over 500 litres of raw milk. The event was chaired by Sir Julian Rose, pioneering organic farmer and raw milk campaigner. This event was organized by the London Chapter of the Weston A Price Foundation: meetup.com/westonaprice-london   and the video's are all available at vimeo.com/wisetraditionsuk

Sally Fallon, Part 1: http://vimeo.com/10489302
Sally Fallon, Part 2: http://vimeo.com/10502171

The headliner was Sally Fallon Morrel, president of the Foundation, discussing the benefits of traditional diets and the pioneering work of Dr Weston A Price. Her website is newtrendspublishing.com

Natasha: http://vimeo.com/10507542

Natasha Campbell-McBride explained how traditional diet can treat and cure mental disorders that include autism and can treat the whole range of degenerative disease we suffer. Her website is gaps.me

Barry Groves: http://vimeo.com/10533993

Barry Groves discussed the physiological and historic evidence that humans are not designed to be vegans or vegetarians in a talk called Homo Carnivorous. His website is www.second-opinions.co.uk

Julian Rose: http://vimeo.com/10563375

Sir Julian Rose then discussed issues around organic farming and raw milk alongside his partner, Jadwiga Lopata, Poland's top countryside campaigner.

Q&A Session: http://vimeo.com/10614476
 
The Q&A session was lively and was a great way to finish off the day.

[citizenx]

Barry groves is absolutely right.  Man has adapted over time to a diet based on meat.  Use of cereals is much more recent and though there may be some adaptation to thei cultural evolution, it may be far from comlplete.

Likewise, though many people are not adapted at all to drink/eat animal milk as we do in the West.  What is good for one person might not be any good for another.

Actually, the traditional diet in the West is not very good either, as most of the proteins are incomplete.  Where wheat or potatoes are the mainstay of the Western diet traditionally, these are very poor sources of complete proteins (containing all of the needed amino acids) versus a diet based on rice, maize and legumes as in Asia and among Native Americans (Amerindians).

So, the question "whose tradition" is important when considering the value of a "traditional diet".  I am a Westerner, but I think some other cultures had the basics of god nutrition already.  A meat diet supplemented with rice or maize and legumes is probably the best mixture for most people. I would seriously quesstion the value of a Western "traditional diet".

[planning4acrash]

Likewise, though many people are not adapted at all to drink/eat animal milk as we do in the West.  What is good for one person might not be any good for another.

This is not true. Yes, we are not adapted to consume pastuerized, homogenized milk, but raw milk has all the beneficial bacteria and digestive enzymes to be digested by a sterile mammal gut. When you process the milk it comes inedible, but unprocessed it is fantastic. I was lactose intolerant until I started drinking raw milk. So long as your gut wall isn't damaged, you should be able to thrive on raw dairy products.

raw-milk-facts.com - realmilk.com

[citizenx]

Some Native Americans and others cannot digest Lactose at all, it is not a matter of it being pasteurized.

[planning4acrash]

Some Native Americans and others cannot digest Lactose at all, it is not a matter of it being pasteurized.

Nonsense. A baby is born with a sterile gut, with no facility to digest anything, but raw milk has all the digestive enzymes and beneficial bacteria to not only digest milk, but also to populate the gut for a life of digestion. Sure, they will have problems with pasteurized milk, but did the study you've read use raw milk? I doubt it.

[citizenx]

No, it is a genetic condition.  Do some research.  Ask some Native Americans, for instance. This was discovered fairly early on in genetic research.

[citizenx]

Mother's milk, of course.  Not necessarily cow milk, or milk from other animals, you are wrong.

[planning4acrash]

Mother's milk, of course.  Not necessarily cow milk, or milk from other animals, you are wrong.

Again, you are wrong. Each type of milk has what a sterile mammalian gut requires to digest it, in raw form. The only guts that can't digest raw milk are damaged guts, where the gut wall is compromised and for them, I recommend the GAPS protocol: gaps.me

Now listen here, I suffered "lactose intolerance" to debilitating extremes, so did my sister, so did my girlfriend. When we consume raw, organic milk from a heritage Jersey or Guernsey cow, from buffalo or from goat, we have NO problem with it. Raw milk has enough lactobacilli and digestive enzymes to be digested, it has enough for the milk to go sour. The souring process IS the digestion process. It digests itself even outside of the gut. We are mammals, we are designed to consume raw milk.

Alex Jones is often promoting raw milk. Ron Paul swears by it and was bought up drinking it. We in only stopped drinking it as a people on mass in the 1950's and lactose intolerance wasn't known before then.

raw-milk-facts.com

And don't give me that nonsense about oh, we aren't designed for bovine milk, because that nonsense logic would entail that humans could only be canibals, its like, oh, you can't consume something from another species. All animals consume food from other species. Ants consume syrup excreted from aphids, we consume chicken eggs. Now we are not adapted to consume food from genetically manipulated organisms or from modern breeds that overproduce, but this is so asinine, and before you criticize it, maybe, just maybe you may want to go try it.

[citizenx]

Raw milk might be very good for most people, but not all.  Everyone is different genetically.  This is beginning to sound like an idee fixe, though, so I don't hope to persuade you.

In any event milk is not necessary to healthy diet, though it is very nutritious and loaded with protein, calcium, vitamin D etc.

I drink it.  I try to get my daughter to drink it. (Raw milk is not available here in SOuth Kore, where I live.)

I believe people ought to be able to sell unpasteurized milk as well, and I am very opposed to gov't. efforts in the U.S. to prohibit the sale of raw milk.  To some degree, you are preaching to the choir, but on this one point you are dead wrong.

[planning4acrash]

Raw milk might be very good for most people, but not all.  Everyone is different genetically.  This is beginning to sound like an idee fixe, though, so I don't hope to persuade you.

Nonsense, all Mammals are DESIGNED to consume milk, all mammals have mammary glands unless you hadn't noticed, and all mammals are born with a sterile gut, and milk is designed to be digested by a gut that can't digest anything else.  Suggesting that some mammals are genetically unable to tolerate milk is like saying that some cows are genetically unable to eat grass.  The only people who cannot are those with a damaged gut who must re-build their gut flora and repair their gut wall via nutrition before they can tolerate lactose. Lactose intolerance is caused by the processing of milk, which strip if of the probiotics and enzymes that milk digestion require.

[citizenx]

Unable to process animal milk, not their mother's milk.

It is the difference between congentital and secondary lactose intolerance which develops later.

My paternal grandmother was Sicilian.  71% of Sicilians have secondary lactose intolerance.


If your ancestors say, were British or Germanic, the chances of your having lacotose intolerance are very small and you can probably easily drink raw (unprocessed) animal milk as an older child or adult.

Read:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_intolerance

for a description of the different types of lactose intolerance and their prevalence in different genetic populations.

[planning4acrash]

Again, you use stats. But the fact is that hardly any humans produce lactase long after weaning. So of course, 70 odd percent of Sicilians will be intolerant to pasteurized milk. But again, you don't differentiate between pasteurized and raw. Raw milk includes lactobaccili- which produces all the lactase you need, right there in the gut. For those who don't get it yet, when raw milk goes sour, OUTSIDE the body, that it is digesting its own lactose, spontaneously. Pasteurized milk, lacking any lacto-bacilli or lactase goes putrid. Simply the heat of the gut is enough to digest raw milk, because it is packed with over 50 digestive enzymes and probiotic bacteria. So, you are just simply wrong, and you are quoting me studies that only refer to milk, without breaking it down to different types of milk. It is processors that simplified milk into a dead,  homogenous product from its complex, live nature, and they fund most of the studies, so their bias always affects the big studies.

And note, on mainland Europe, they have lots of ultra high temperature treated milk (UHT), which is harder to digest than simple pasteurized milk, so, your Sicilian stats do not surprise me. Raw milk is available in Italy, but, you'll probably have a choice of UHT or, raw milk if you can find it, whilst in Britain, you get fresh pasteurized mainly, some UHT and a very small amount of raw.

And, there is little difference between mothers and animal milk so long as it is raw, since every different type has its own specific ratio of probiotics and enzymes, designed to spontaneously digest itself in any mammal gut. However, when pasteurized, some are easier to digest than others, e.g. pasteurized goat milk is easier to digest than pasteurized cow milk because fat globules are smaller in goat, but, raw, there is little difference, because nature gives milk what it needs to spontaneously digest at the correct temperature.

We and Sicilians did not evolve lactose intolerance this century. What really happened is that humans have not yet evolved to deal with processed food. That would take thousands or millions of years, and we simply won't last that long if we continue down that rout, so it just won't happen. Adults don't produce their own lactase because the lactase in milk is sufficient to digest the smaller amount of milk adults consume, but this is not lactose intolerance, which is a fake designation that does not exist.
 

[citizenx]

OK, well nevertheless, milk and dairy products are not and never have been a large part of the Sicilian or Mediterranean diet, so maybe people there developed/evolved a different digestive system over a long period of time, like Native Americans.  I don' think it is a coincidence. Probably this intolerance goes back a long time before pasteurization.  And yes, animal milk is a lot different ion content from mother's milk.  But, hey I was a bottle/formula baby.  I would have possibly starved to death were it not for those modern products, so I have no prejudice against them.

In any event, I maintain, you do not need milk or dairy products to have a healthy diet (though, again I agree they acn be very nutritious).  Again, diferent people have DIFFERENT traditional diets.  Who is to say the traditional British/Germanic/Scandinavian diet is the healthiest for everyone.

I live in East Asia.  Dairy products are not a large part of the diet here and people live longer generally than in Anerica and the West in general, so I dont thin they are missing much.

But, if you like milk, go ahead and drink it.  Enjoy.  Just remember people and customs are different all around the world.

[planning4acrash]

Milk and dairy products are not and never have been a large part of the Sicilian or Mediterranean diet

UTTER JUNK, the biggest nutritional myth is that Mediterraneans have a low fat diet. Italians consume vast quantities of butter per capita. Just as those in SE Asia and Japan only eat small amounts of fermented soy as condiments so it is true that Mediterraneans consume modest quantities of olive oil and vegetables. Their primary source of food is animal fat, meat and dairy. And sorry, for those of you who've never been to Europe, if you tell them they have a low fat diet, they will laugh in your face till the cows come home! SURE, they eat veg, but smother it in butter.

Just look at the French, they smother their food with butter, lard and drippings and have copious quantities of slow cooked pasture fed meat. They consume cheese, cream and full fat milk like there's no tomorrow, second only to Italians who consume ridiculous quantities of vitamin rich, life giving butter from pastured ruminants.

You listen far too much to the mainstream media. And how on earth did a SE Asian have the gaul to come here and say that Sicilians don't have dairy. You never heard of Italian Cheese?!?! They live on Mozzarella, Parmesan and Parma Ham. All that good stuff, and so may it last, unless the diet dictocrats get their way, but you'll never take my vitamin rich full fat food from me.

[citizenx]

UTTER JUNK, the biggest nutritional myth is that Mediterraneans have a low fat diet. Italians consume vast quantities of butter per capita. Just as those in SE Asia and Japan only eat small amounts of fermented soy as condiments so it is true that Mediterraneans consume modest quantities of olive oil and vegetables. Their primary source of food is animal fat, meat and dairy. And sorry, for those of you who've never been to Europe, if you tell them they have a low fat diet, they will laugh in your face till the cows come home! SURE, they eat veg, but smother it in butter.

Just look at the French, they smother their food with butter, lard and drippings and have copious quantities of slow cooked pasture fed meat. They consume cheese, cream and full fat milk like there's no tomorrow, second only to Italians who consume ridiculous quantities of vitamin rich, life giving butter from pastured ruminants.

You listen far too much to the mainstream media. And how on earth did a SE Asian have the gaul to come here and say that Sicilians don't have dairy. You never heard of Italian Cheese?!?! They live on Mozzarella, Parmesan and Parma Ham. All that good stuff, and so may it last, unless the diet dictocrats get their way, but you'll never take my vitamin rich full fat food from me.

Northern Italians do use large amounts of dairy products.  Sicilians and Neapolitans -- no.  I am not a southeast Asian, I am an American living in South Korea (not Southeast Asia last I checked) -- would you like to stick your foot in your mouth one more time?  I told you my grandmother was Sicilian.  Think red sauce not cheese sauce in Sicily.  You certainly are defensive about your little hobby-horse, and I don't want to take your damn milk/raw milk away.  You don't really need it nevertheless.

[planning4acrash]

Utter Drivel. Southern Italians do not have have never, outside times of famine, lived on a low fat diet.

The first website I found on Sicilian food talks about cheese, meat, all those things, and, since pasteurization is modern, you know for 100% that they consumed raw dairy at least until recent times. So keep pushing the disinfo, but nobody buys it: http://www.bestofsicily.com/food.htm

[citizenx]

One of us is at least part Sicilian.  One of us is an ignorant bigoted limey that thinks he knows more about Sicilians than the Sicilians themselves - typical, really.  Take your "disinfo" comment and blow it out your a$$.

Why are you British such friggin' know-it-alls?  It is the most annoying thing on Earth.  Bar none.

Ciao.

Drink your milk.

You know you are what you eat.

MOOOOOOOOO!

[planning4acrash]

I'm 3/8 Italian. My family come from Ascoli Piceno on the Adriatic Coast. I've been taken to them to restaurants where almost every course is either 90% meat or sea food, with little or no vegetables. My family is based mid-way between the north and the south. Very childish to call be a know-all. A person either knows something or they don't. I'd rather be aware of something I discuss rather than be ignorant and argumentative like yourself. You are most likely a government schill or else totally brainwashed given that it is only government that has promoted the idea that the Mediterranean diet is low fat. They only use olive oil in massive quantities on salads because butter and lard don't work on cold food. But when they can use butter, they use it, and when they can use animal fats, they use it.

[citizenx]

I polentoni!

Look, it's "shill" not "schill" in English.  No, I'm not a gov't. "shill".  I worked for an auctioneer, however, so I know what a shill is when I see one.

Anyway,  despite your pissiness, I 've been the only one even responding to your extremely narrow-focus thread, but hey since you've been so generally insulting, I don't really feel obliged to address your points very directly.

However, exactly what gov't. has been pushing the Mediterranean diet in your opinion?  U.S.?  U.K.? This is the most non-sensical thing you have said yet, and there have been some doosies.

[planning4acrash]

In Britain, we are told to have a "low fat" Mediterranean diet. We are told that people from that area live longer because they have more veg and olive oil. They ignore the massive provision of saturated fat in that diet from animal fats and whole dairy products. They go so far as to say that red wine is what lets French live longer with their higher cholesterol levels!! Just total cognitive dissonance.

[citizenx]

OK, I understand your point-of-view a little bit.  In America we don't get any direct propaganda a for a "Mediterranean diet" which is good in many ways (as you probably know, being part Italian as well --BTW, that makes us paisans!).  It is also a horrible diet in many ways, like its dependence on starches and, yes, there is the occasional gorging on meat.  Wheat flour is probably one of the most incomplete protein "staple foods".  So, I would be the last person to defend the "Mediterranean diet" as a whole.  Far from it.

I eat pasta only once in a while now myself. It's a kind of treat.  A comfort food, if you will.

Yes, there is a lot of use of oils, and sometimes butter, though not as much as in Northern Europe, or even Northern Italy, IMO.

While a little red wine may be good for you, there is certainly no scientific proof it is necessary for long life, and there are even studies that call the claim that it extends life into question.  I don 't drink at all, and haven't in over five years.  So, I think that is probably b.s. as well.


We don't get as much nutritional advice period as you do from your version of the "nanny state".  That is both good an bad as well.

In any event, I doubt we are really that far apart on basic matters of nutrition. So, per favore, accept my apologies for my testiness.  Maybe, one day we can meet in the old country and discuss food more approriately over a good meal.

x

[donnay]

FDA finally sued over its illegal suppression of raw milk

(NaturalNews) Recently the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, a non-profit organization devoted to protecting family farms and their customers from unconstitutional government intrusion, has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over its unconstitutional ban on the interstate sale of raw milk. The case is one of the largest the FTCLDF has ever initiated, particularly against the FDA which has been leading the unlawful crusade against raw milk for many years.

Ironically, in 1987 when the FDA first established guidelines that restricted interstate raw milk sales, the agency did so reluctantly at the behest of a court ruling prompted by a consumer group. Things have changed dramatically since that time, as the agency now aggressively leads the charge to disrupt and eliminate all raw milk sales wherever it can.

The FDA, USDA, and other local public health officials have shifted their tactics in recent years as well, targeting consumers who purchase raw milk rather than farmers who sell it. A recent case of this involved an unlawful search and seizure by Georgia officials who forced a man to destroy 110 gallons of raw milk from South Carolina that he was delivering to customers who had already paid for them.

The crux of the case alleges that the FDA is overstepping its constitutional bounds by banning interstate raw milk sales. Customers who travel to nearby states to purchase raw milk are doing so legally, but once they cross the border back into their home state where sales are illegal, they are essentially being forced to break the FDA's rules, which themselves violate the constitutional right to travel, the constitutional right of privacy, and the substantive due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Whenever it is challenged on its position regarding raw milk, the FDA typically does not have much, if anything, to say in response. The agency typically resorts to an outdated, deceptive slideshow presentation available on its website that supposedly indicts raw milk as being unsafe for human consumption. This is besides the fact that its rules violate the U.S. Constitution.

Statistical data actually reveals that raw milk is far safer than not only pasteurized milk, but also a lot of other processed foods that are implicated foodborne illness outbreaks. Lunchmeat, for instance, has a far worse track record of being contaminated with bacteria like salmonella and E. coli than does raw milk. The FDA has yet to participate in an honest debate concerning these facts.

Additionally, the FTCLDF case presents alternatives to the FDA's existing policy, including simply requiring labeling that indicates the milk is unpasteurized. Considering that raw milk is legal in roughly half of the United States, there is no legitimate reason why the FDA continues to vilify it, especially since it is far safer than many other foods available on the market.

Sources for this story include:

http://www.grist.org/article/raw-mi...

[planning4acrash]

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, is part of the Weston A Price Foundation ( westonaprice.org ) who run realmilk.com

Alex, please get Sally Fallon onto your show!!

[donnay]

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

(NaturalNews) The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes "defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods", recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom. These views will shock you, but they reveal the true evil intent of the FDA and why it is truly a rogue federal agency.

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only "allowed" to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA's consent.

This is no exaggeration. It's exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

You have no natural right to food
The FTCLDF highlighted a few of the key phrases from the FDA's response document in a recent email to its supporters. They include the following two statements from the FDA:

"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds." [p. 26]

"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." [p.26]

There's a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons -- even just political reasons -- all at their whim.

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

The U.S. government's secret agenda to eliminate raw milk
Raw milk has been in the spotlight recently as defenders of the food are constantly battling with state and federal authorities over the freedom to buy and sell it. At the national level, the FDA has been on a ruthless crusade to eliminate all sales of raw milk everywhere. Lately, the agency seems to have shifted its tactics from attacking raw milk dairy farmers directly to going after raw milk "buying clubs" and "cow-share" programs, which effectively bypass the draconian laws in many states by establishing private contracts between individuals.

In a cow-share program, you buy a share of the cow's produced milk, and you pay a cost of the cow's upkeep. It's sort of like CSA shares for farm veggies, but with cow's milk instead of veggies. This arrangement drives the FDA absolutely batty because it bypasses their authority and allows free people to engage in the free sales of raw dairy products produced on small family farms.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don't drink it?

It certainly has nothing to do with food safety, as the FDA commonly claims is its reason for opposing it. Raw milk's track record of safety is phenomenal, and all legitimate studies indicate that it's actually less prone to harbor harmful bacteria than the pasteurized stuff (which is all dead, modified milk anyway).

According to a Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) report, between 1980 and 2005, there were ten times more illnesses from pasteurized milk than there were from raw milk. And most of the reports that link illness outbreaks with raw milk provide little or no evidence that raw milk was even the culprit.

But apparently the facts don't really matter to the FDA (is anyone surprised?) because the agency continues to repeat false talking points about how raw milk is inherently dangerous and that drinking it is "like play Russian Roulette with your health".

Big Dairy behind push to eliminate raw milk
The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

Recently in Massachusetts, for example, the state's Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) has been targeting raw milk buying clubs that purchase raw milk from rural dairy farms and have it delivered to urban drop-off points where many of the customers live. Raw milk sales are legal in Massachusetts as long as they are done at the farm, and the state has long tolerated buying clubs, which are convenient for customers and technically perfectly legal.

But this situation now seems to have changed. MDAR recently sent cease-and-desist letters to four buying clubs even though there is no Massachusetts law that prohibits their existence. When club members challenged the legitimacy of the warnings, MDAR decided to propose a new regulation to specifically outlaw buying clubs. (They just can't stand the fact that people are buying raw milk, can they?)

Get this: Scott Soares, a Massachusetts legislator who is friends with the MDAR commissioner, held a preliminary meeting in advance of the May 10th proposal hearing to discuss the matter with interested parties. Fifteen educated and passionate consumers and farmers of raw milk showed up to challenge Soares, who ended up revealing to them that "large dairy producers" had contacted him to push for raw milk restrictions.

To make matters worse, it was revealed that Soares failed to follow proper protocol by not opening a docket to keep a record of all interactions relating to the proposal. So not only did Soares reveal that he's basically bowing to political pressure from Big Dairy by supporting the restrictions, but he's also violating proper legislative procedure in the process.

So what we have here is a classic case of a large and powerful industry pushing government regulators to outlaw competing products so that it can monopolize the market. It's the same thing that Big Pharma does in getting the FDA to destroy nutritional supplement companies. But now it's happening with raw milk, too.

What's next? Will all farmer's markets be outlawed because the veggies haven't all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it's all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won't let anything get in their way... not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

I'm sensing a Ghandi moment coming on here. Somebody is going to have a powerful public demonstration against tyranny by drinking raw milk in the same way that Ghandi led his followers to harvesting salt. People have a natural-born right to real food, and the FDA is violating human rights by attacking producers of raw milk.

Unconstitutional position of the FDA
It's not really news to the folks in the natural health community that the FDA opposes personal health freedoms, but according to the FTCLDF, the FDA's recent response to its lawsuit is one of the agency's boldest statements yet about how it views health freedom in America. It practically turns the FDA into a dictatorial Gestapo-like agency whose mission is to destroy the U.S. Constitution and deprive people of their natural rights.

Not only does the FDA think it has the power to regulate interstate trade; it also thinks it can regulate intrastate trade (which means buying and selling within state borders). In fact, the agency made this very clear on page 6 of its dismissal when it wrote, "It is within HHS's authority...to institute an intrastate ban [on unpasteurized milk] as well."

This is the FDA trying to run rampant over States' rights. The federal government, after all, isn't satisfied to exercise control over the limited powers granted to it by the U.S. Constitution -- it wants to overthrow the tenth Amendment and dictate rules, regulations and laws that the states are being forced to follow.

This is blatantly unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from intruding on the laws of individual states, and is only allowed to wield powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution (powers granted by the People, in other words).

There is no power granted to the federal government to ban the sales of raw milk. I've read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and I never saw it mentioned in there. The very idea, by the way, would have seemed bizarre (and downright stupid) by our nation's founders, many of whom actually operated farms and drank raw milk themselves.

According to the FTCLDF suit, the FDA is clearly operating outside Constitutional authority by forbidding raw milk from being transported across state lines from states where it is legal to sell it. And for the FDA to arrogantly announce that it has the authority to ban intrastate raw milk sales shows just how tyrannical and oppressive the agency has now become.

The FDA, bluntly states, has become an enemy of the People. It is taking away the rights that your forefathers helped protect (often with their lives). The FDA is destroying what your fathers and grandfathers fought for in World War II. It is attempting to terrorize the raw milk producers of America and run them out of business through a campaign of threats and intimidation. This is the agency that's supposed to be working for the People? Give me a break...

Even private contracts aren't a fundamental right, according to the FDA
But it gets even worse. On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.

Huh? Are you kidding me?

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don't actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms. You are a slave, Neo.

The "substantive due process" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA -- aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter -- doesn't honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

But all hope is not lost... there are things you can do to fight for your freedoms.

What you can do to protect food freedom
According to David Gumpert from The Complete Patient, raw milk is a proxy issue that really addresses food freedom at large. Whatever is decided about raw milk will set a precedent for everything else.

That's why it's so important to support raw milk freedom whether you drink milk or not (I don't drink milk, but I support raw milk freedoms nevertheless). Not only is legalized raw milk beneficial to small, family farmers who are able to maintain livelihoods because of it, it also supports the local food economy. It's also, by the way, a whole lot healthier than pasteurized milk!

On January 28, 2009, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) introduced HR 778, a bill that would end all federal restrictions on interstate traffic of raw milk. It's along the same lines as the current lawsuit which challenges the constitutionality of such restrictions in the first place. You can read the entire bill at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/docs/HR_778_I...)

The FTCLDF has a petition page where you can contact your Congressmen and urge support for HR 778. You can even ask your Senators to cosponsor it. Please support this effort by signing this online petition.

Even more urgent than this is the need to express your opposition to a "food safety" bill going before the U.S. Senate called the "FDA Food Safety Modernization Act". Also known as S. 510, this bill, if passed, will drastically increase the FDA's power over food and make it very difficult to obtain natural, unprocessed foods of any kind. It would give the FDA completely power to irradiate, fumigate, pasteurize or otherwise destroy every item you consume, from fruits and vegetables to dairy products.

Remember how I said that the FDA (wrongly) thinks it has the power to regulate intrastate trade? Well S. 510 would specifically grant the agency this power. The FDA would then have the power to destroy all small, local farming, gardening or dairy operations in your home town, even if your state expressly defends your rights to engage in such activity.

Can you imagine a SWAT team of FDA agents showing up at your door because you grew organic broccoli and sold some at the weekend farmer's market without fumigating it with poisons first? That's what's coming to your home town, everywhere across America.

S. 510 is the final version of H.R. 2749, which was passed last summer by the House of Representatives. There's still time to stop it, but we need your help. So please sign the petition linked above.

I know sometimes it seems like the politicians aren't listening, and for the most part that's true, but a massive outcry against this attempted takeover of food is sure to get their attention and may even force them to back down.

You can read all about both bills at the following link:
(http://www.ftcldf.org/news/news-foo...)

You can also contact your Senators by visiting this link:
(http://www.opencongress.org/people/...)

Join the Raw Milk Drink-In!
The Organic Consumers Association, by the way, is holding a Raw Milk Drink In in Boston today (May 10, 2010). Here's the announcement from the OCA. Please go join the drink in if you live near Boston!

Suzanne the Cow on Boston Common for "Raw Milk Drink In"

Raw Milk Enthusiasts Slam Proposed State Ban on Raw Milk Buying Clubs

Press Conference Precedes 10 AM Public Hearing at Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources

MOOVE OVER CORPORATE COWS! WE WANT PASTURE NOT PASTEURIZED! THE MDAR IS UDDERLY RIDICULOUS! MDAR'S RAW MILK BUYERS' CLUB BAN IS BULL! MDAR SHOULDN'T COWTOW TO BIG AG!

BOSTON - On Monday, May 10, 2010, for perhaps the first time since the park was used, prior to 1830, as a pasture, a cow will graze on Boston Common. The cow is Suzanne, a beautiful pasture-raised Jersey who gives healthy raw milk through Eastleigh Farm in Framingham, MA.

The occasion is a gathering of raw milk enthusiasts and dairy farmers who will bring a cow to the Common for a "Raw Milk Drink In" and then gather at the State House for a press conference.

The raw milk rally comes as the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) attempts to restrict the delivery of raw milk to thousands of consumers throughout Massachusetts. Earlier this year, the MDAR issued a cease and desist order to four raw milk buying club drivers who were delivering the milk to customers in urban and suburban areas of the state.

Who: Raw milk cow, farmers and consumers.

What: Photo opportunity with raw milk cow, "Raw Milk Drink In" and press conference.

When:
8 am Cow & "Raw Milk Drink-In," Boston Common
9:20 am Press Conference, State House
10 am Public Hearing, Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources
2 pm Cow leaves Boston Common

Where: Boston Common - Adjacent to Brewer Fountain, then Statehouse

Speakers available for interviews:

Doug Stephan, Raw Milk Dairy Farmer, Owner Eastleigh Farm in Framingham, MA, (bringing the cow).

David Gumpert, author of The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights.

Max Kane, a Wisconsin buying club owner who is currently fighting contempt of court charge brought by the WI Dept of Agriculture for his refusal to reveal his sources of Raw Milk.

Mark McAfee, the owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., the largest raw dairy in the country, based in California.

More Information:

Over three million Americans now prefer organic raw milk and raw milk dairy products over pasteurized milk because of its superior nutrition and disease fighting qualities and because it comes from small, local producers who pasture their dairy cows, rather than keeping them confined all day and all year in dairy feedlots on huge, disease-ridden factory farms.

There have been no reported cases of raw milk-related illnesses in Massachusetts in over ten years.

Alexis Baden-Mayer, Political Director for the Organic Consumers Association says, "We don't need a 'new solution.' Up until this proposed ban, everything has been fine. If there's any change to Massachusetts regulations, it should be a change to make it easier -- not harder -- for us to get the healthy organic raw milk and dairy products we want. This law would deny us our right to choose what we eat and drink."

Learn more at www.organicconsumers.org/raw-milk