Michael Schmidts Position in Milk Debates - Research Paper Example

? Milk Debate - Michael Schmidt’s position Following the Canadian Milk Act of 1938, selling of unpasteurized milk or raw milk is prohibited in Canada.  For well over two decades, until 2006, Michael Schmidt distributed raw milk from his Glencolton farms in Canada.  Michael never denied the fact that he was selling milk devoid of pasterurization.  In 2006, Michael’s farm became a subject of surveillance by officials who deployed cameras to gather proof. Following this a search on the farm took place in the month of November 2006. Michael was charged of selling raw milk and milk products for 20 years. Twenty-five officers raided the farm and took possession of milk stock, computers and files from there (Ogilvie).  Since then, there has been a big debate over Michael Schmidt’s right to sell raw milk.   According to Karen Selick, lawyer of Michael Schmidt, the issue is not just about selling raw milk, but also about wider human rights (The Bovine). Many people who had become used to consuming raw milk distributed by Michael found it extremely natural.  They claim that it had a flavor, better than any branded milk available at stores.  It also gave them great satisfaction that the milk came from well-cared animals living in an ideal natural farm near neighboring Grey Bruce County (CBC Documentaries).  One web based discussion titled “Raw Milk Crusader” cites examples of people who opted for Michael’s milk and stated it offered a number of health benefits including relief from osteoporosis, healing allergies, and unlike pasteurized milk, did not cause constipation (CBC Documentaries). One nature lover Paul Noble, who is perturbed by the intrusion of the government in the issue concerning raw milk, opines, “if God had intended us to drink pasteurized milk, he would have put a pasteurizer on the cow” (Ananda).  On the other hand, there is little doubt among health experts that there is tangible menace in consuming raw milk, particularly for small children.  Milk that is not pasteurized could include a number of harmful bacteria, including campylobacter, listeria, salmonella, brucella, and E. coli 0157:H7 that led to the deaths of seven people in Walkerton in 2000.  Considering this fact, one needs to examine this issue both from biological and basic human rights point of view.  The problem in simple terms stands as; ‘if someone decides to consume raw milk even after knowing it might harm him should he be prohibited from following his decision?’  Many human rights activists will perhaps disagree.  Rady Ananda in her article “How Safe Is Your Food?  GMO’s, Foodborne illness and Trade Agreements” is particularly worried about how governments and corporate houses are using the so called ‘food safety’ to manipulate market access and control.  Ananda brings into light a global report released by GRAIN. She claimed backed by the GRAIN report that the entire exercise, instead of making food safer, is directed towards monopolizing access to the market.  The 37-page GRAIN report observes that while the food problem globally is getting more serious with every passing day, governments and corporations are responding to the food crisis that has little to do with public health.  Furthermore according to the report, legal rulings only support corporate houses to the disadvantage of biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and local markets.  The whole discriminatory scenario is summed up in one important case faced by the Canadian raw milk producer Michael Schmidt.  Clearly, interference by the government on the fundamental and natural right to drink or not to drink raw milk is unacceptable to many people.  Moreover it is also observed in the GRAIN report that BSE or mad cow disease does not originate in cows that feed on normal grass; it is rather grains mixed with slaughter waste that leads to BSE (Ananda). The scenarios in other countries are not so bright either. According to a recent declaration by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in May 2011, it can seize food without proof of contamination.  From July 2011, the FDA will have the right to seize food items that it has reason to suspect are adulterated or misbranded for up to 30 days if needed, to ensure they are kept out of the marketplace (FDA News Release).  This is clearly against the US constitution that “protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure”(Police Training Institute).  One can infer that such actions indirectly go against those individuals or entities that prefer to sell or consume natural food products.  Such tilt forces small milk producers who are not willing to spend money on branding activities to run out of their businesses.  Indirectly, it supports big milk producers who run their trade by spending lots of money on building brands.  Some of that money is perhaps also allocated in convincing governments to stall small milk producers by making a case that only pasteurized milk sold by them is hygienic.  Here one can see that legal rulings are favoring corporate houses on the plea that milk produced by them, which is pasteurized, is only hygienic.  It could have been okay if the same yardstick of ‘health first’ was applied when it comes to Genetically Modified (GM) foods.  Time and again, it has been proved that GM foods are not good for human consumption despite of the higher profitability associated with their production.  It is alleged by Wikileaks that France was pressurized by George W. Bush administration to soften its stand against genetically modified foods.  This move clearly favored big biotechnology food producers like DuPont and Monsanto.  These biotechnology food producers do not like foreign countries imposing restrictions on selling GM seeds or foods.  They also prefer to sell their products without labels that inform consumers of the presence of GM.  It is true that selling raw milk is permitted in 28 states in US and all other G8 countries apart from Canada.  However, there is intense pressure by big dairy houses that sell their milks in branded form to stop distribution of raw milk (Ananda). It is alleged by many that members of the US Biotechnology Industry Organization meticulously use FTA seminars by government officials as a mode to secure market for GM foods.  Many feel that that US trade policy destabilizes other countries rights over food safety.  US regularly demands easing of rules favoring import of US farm products that other countries hold hazardous.  Clearly, a uniform policy needs to be put in place when it comes to implementing access to food.  There is significant difference between offering citizens advice on potential hazards that may be involved if they choose to consume certain thing and making it completely out of reach.  Again, there is no thin line of difference in outlining what can be hazardous in a significant way.  If consumption of raw milk has harmful effects on small children, perhaps banning it entirely for consumption of small children would be the right thing.  However, forbidding nature lovers from consuming raw milk despite knowing the risks associated with it, appears unacceptable.  When it comes to harmful chemicals, a total ban on human consumption is understandable.  However, there is a difference between such harmful chemicals often prepared under laboratory conditions and food items as natural as raw milk.  It is harmful to consume cigarette or other alcoholic drinks.  Are they not allowed to be sold but with restricted warnings?  As Michael never claimed that he was selling pasteurized milk, was it not an indirect communication to those who were consuming his milk about apparent risks?  Also, once he informs categorically that he is selling raw milk that can have implications on human health, not observed in pasteurized milk, should not he be allowed carrying on his business?  An absolute restriction on him from carrying on his business is a case of double standard that needs to be rectified.                                  References Ananda, Rady.  “How Safe Is Your Food?  GMO’s, Foodborne illness and Trade Agreements.” Activist Post, 10 May 2011:  n.pag.   Web.  8 June 2011.  . CBC Documentaries.  “Raw Milk Crusader.” CBC Documentaries, 21 Oct. 2008.  Web.  8 June 2011.  < http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/discussion/2008/10/raw-milk-crusader.html>.  FDA News Release.  FDA issues first new rules under Food Safety Modernization Act.  4 May 2011.  Web.  8 June 2011.  < http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/2011/ucm253983.htm>. Police Training Institute, Plain View Doctrine (Dwellings/Curtilage), 2009, available at: http://www.pti.uiuc.edu/resources/documents/PlainView.doc (accessed on June 8, 2011) Ogilvie, Megan.  “Raw versus the law.” 17 May 2008:  n.pag.  Web.  8 June 2011.  . The Bovine.  “Raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt’s lawyer, Karen Selick to be interviewed tonight by Sun TV’s Ezra Levant, 5 pm.”  24 May 2011.  Web.  8 June 2011.  < http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2011/05/24/raw-milk-farmer-michael-schmidts-lawyer-karen-selick-to-be-interviewed-tonight-by-sun-tvs-ezra-levant-5-pm/ >. Read More