Ontario farmer convicted in raw-milk trial, seeks maximum penalty + Comments

[Guest guest]

Ontario farmer convicted in raw-milk trial, seeks maximum penalty

_http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/20/schmidt-milk.html?ref=rss_

(http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/10/20/schmidt-milk.html?ref=rss)

 

Farmer asks court to impose maximum penalty

 

An organic farmer found guilty Monday morning of ignoring a court order to

stop selling unpasteurized milk asked the judge to give him the maximum

penalty.

 

Michael Schmidt has run a co-operative organic dairy farm near Owen Sound,

Ont., for more than 20 years.

 

Contempt charges were sought by York Region officials, who fear there are

health risks for people consuming the raw milk, including the risk of spreading

salmonella, E. coli and listeria bacteria.

 

Schmidt still faces 20 charges laid by the Ministry of Natural Resources and

the Grey-Bruce Health Unit. In order to save money for that trial, expected

to begin in early 2009, Schmidt defended himself in the contempt case.

 

Justice R. Cary Boswell is yet to deliver a sentence for Schmidt, but did

not say when that decision would be made.

 

While the Crown was not seeking jail time, Schmidt told the judge at a

courthouse in Newmarket, Ont., to impose " the highest penalty you can find. "

 

York Region lawyer Dan Kuzmyk said he was unwilling to let Schmidt become a

martyr and " throw himself on the sword of York Region. "

 

Justice Boswell said the case was about whether Schmidt had defied a court

ruling, not whether consumers had the right to drink raw milk.

 

Selling raw milk is illegal in Canada. In Ontario, it is not illegal to

drink it if you own the cow, and many farmers drink unpasteurized milk.

 

Schmidt's legal battles have sparked a heated debate over the safety of raw

milk. Advocates have extolled its flavour and health benefits, while health

officials and the province's milk marketing board, the Dairy Farmers of

Ontario, have argued raw milk isn't fit for widespread distribution.

 

Schmidt has previously said he has sold part-ownership in his animals — or

" cow shares " — and argues he is selling milking and distribution services,

not

the milk itself.

 

Schmidt has stood by his actions since health officials carried out an armed

raid of his farm in November 2006 and seized his milking equipment.

 

" The rich and sweet taste of unpasteurized milk would blow most people

away, " Schmidt has said.

 

" I bet that 90 per cent of the people who would have the choice by blind

tasting would all go for raw milk because that is the taste of milk and not

what

you buy on the shelf, " he said.

 

 

With files from the Canadian Press

 

Story comments (228)

 

_LondonOntarioGuy_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8867435)

wrote:

" Do we allow people to sell a product we know has a risk of being unsafe? "

 

Absolutely we do. We allow the sale of cars, but there is a risk that one

might get into an accident with it. And trust me, having worked in the food

service industry for the past four years, companies get away with a lot more

than we as consumers would like to believe. Companies will stop at nothing to

save a buck or two, but nobody goes after them.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is just a way of the milk marketing board to

keep other milk out of the market, it has nothing to do with safety.

------------------------

_Richard1359_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8040382)

wrote:

This is not so much about public safety... the French drink unpasteurized

milk all the time and I don't see them dropping like flies. This is all about

big money and a powerful agri-industry maintaining their stranglehold on the

production and distribution of dairy products. In BC, most of the dairy

farmers hold 'quotas' and their business plan/value is largely based on the

size of

their quota. The banks will even lend money based on that quota because that

quota is also a guarantee of a reliable income flow.

 

In this closed controlled agri-system where quotas are bought and sold for

huge sums... it is claimed this system promotes stability but it also

guarantees much higher prices for the consumer. In Washington state butter is

about

$2.00/lb-$2.50/lb...here in BC it's $3.50/lb -$5.00/lb.

 

People who challenge this powerful agri-cartel will most certainly face jail

time....and they will have no problem keeping this sh** disturbing

mal-content in jail for the rest of his life if necessary. They will fight this

to the

SOC and beyond because the stakes are huge.

 

If this farmer " gets away " with his challenge the entire dairy and

distribution system, as we have it in Canada could collapse as other producers

quickly

moved into the market without the burden of having to 'buy' a quota from an

existing producer. So If 'quotas' were suddenly null and void and the market

was 'free' as it is in the USA? The banks ©would quickly call demand loans

given to the dairy industry because the collateral of the quota was no longer

there.

 

It's kinda like taxi licenses. The taxi itself is often worth little, while

the license itself; usually held by a large company, may be worth in excess

of $100,000.

 

And what of the consumer? To heck with them... let em pay.

----

_Tom Almey_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8062868)

wrote:

" It's not drinking raw milk. It's the transportation and storage. The

bacteria count in raw is exponentially higher for raw milk than pasteurized

milk.

If the farmer could ensure that all milk was stored properly and consumed

within 14 hours of milking, there probably wouldn't be much risk. "

 

Do supermarkets ensure that the milk they sell is stored properly and

consumed within a certain time frame? Of course they don't, and there's no

requirement for them to do so. That responsibility rests squarely on the

shoulders of

the consumer. It's silly to suggest otherwise.

 

" In the countries where raw milk is legally sold, the producer still needs

to be certified and licensed. Do you really think that Schmidt wants to create

a safe distribution network for organic, raw milk producers? Maybe, but I

doubt it. "

 

Regardless of who they sell their milk to, dairy farmers are subject to

licensing requirements and their herds are inspected regularly. As for Schmidt

wanting to create a distribution network, that's not what this story is about

at all. It's about his right to sell his milk to whomever wants it, without

the need to hire a middleman who happens to have monopolized his position.

Nowhere in the article does it say anything about shipping unpasteurized milk

throughout some kind of network - his customers come to his farm and take the

milk home to their refrigerators. My comments in an earlier post pointed out

that legislation could be enacted which would guarantee his right to sell the

milk and his customers' right to purchase and consume it, while at the same

time prohibit the resale of milk to a third party. What's so hard about that?

Or dangerous, for that matter?

----------

_Devin306_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8092541) wrote:

Human beings are the only mammals that drink the milk of another species.

 

I'm glad the government has regulations to stop just any one from selling

any old thing as safe to drink... but isn't it time we looked at all the

hormones and other drugs pumped into our cattle and what effects this may be

having

upon our children?

-----------

_Stephen Dalley_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8406865)

As I understand it the farm is a co-operative and the co-owners of the cows

pay a fee for the care of the cows and operation of the farm. Much like

purchasing a share in a coop housing development, you own a share of each

others

house.

 

Since it is perfectly legal to own ones own cow and consume it's milk then

it follows that shared ownership should be treated the same way.

 

It's too bad he could not afford a lawyer or find one hat would take it on

pro-bono. It should have been win-able.

 

Lets not talk about chickens or eggs.

----------------------

_lostteensoul_ (http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=8868976)

wrote:

Cases like this make me worry about our freedom. I've read some pretty scary

stuff about how big money is driving our laws to make it virtually

impossible for the little guy to survive.

 

I know there are a lot of conspiracy theories out there, but I do fear that

our government is not protecting us, but the big businesses. When the time

comes and we need the small farmers for our nutrition, will they be there? Will

they legally be allowed to sell to us?

 

Overall, I'm not convinced that our medical system has our best interest in

mind. I'm sure most doctors do, but there are too many pharmaceutical

companies involved who stand to lose money if people, en masse, decide to

boycott

drugs. I'm not saying these drugs are bad, but people should have a choice

about what to put in their body and at the moment, it looks like you only have

that choice if you are wealthy enough to do it legally.

 

In this case, if you can't afford to buy a cow, or you live in an area that

isn't zoned for farming, then you are out of luck if you want all natural

milk.

 

Yes, pasteurization has probably done a lot of good. But there are many,

many people who have and still drink raw milk and are perfectly healthy. Just

because WE (man) have improved on something, doesn't make what God created to

be inferior. Science isn't the end of knowledge, but the beginning.

 

As far as this farmer, and his civil disobedience, I agree with the comments

that mention several historical situations where people fought for our civil

rights. Sometimes, it takes someone to be brave enough to stand up for what

is right, not what is legal. Tell your black friends in the southern U.S.

that they should have just done what they were told rather than stand up for

freedom.

 

This isn't a cut a dry situation. This farmer should be commended for

thinking about the rights and freedoms of others above his own well-being. And

if

you really believe that he should have just shut up, then perhaps you will do

the same when you disagree with your political leaders, or when a new law

takes your freedoms away.

 

We live in a free society, people. And that means we will have to fight for

the freedoms we believe in. This man did. Will you?

----------

_truthsometimeshurts_

(http://www.cbc.ca/membercentre/ViewMember.aspx?u=7650609)

This is nuts. This guy runs a co-operative and only sells to shareholders -

he's not hurting anyone.

 

Yet we allow Maple Leaf Foods to continue pumping out crap posing as 'food'

- that of which is also subject to Listeria as we all know - but that's OK.

 

A small indie farmer might go to jail while the numbskull running MLF is

driving around in his Benz. The small farmer has hurt nobody - but the guy in

charge at MLF and their recent disaster killed 20 people.

 

Buy local. Buy organic when you can. Stop supporting an industry that

doesn't give a rat's ass about you & pressure the government to do what's right

and

not what's popular. This means: let the farmer be and throw McCain in jail.

----

More Comments............................... & Add Your

Comments........................