Germany the Likely Leader to Economic Stability in Europe
Firing a General? It's been done before, by another lousy president!

Big Brother eyes your freedom to drink milk

Decision will determine 'whether government controls the people'

Posted: June 22, 2010
10:44 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

A legal brief filed in a federal court dispute over the purchase and use of raw milk 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.

The brief argues, contrary to allegations by the FDA, everyone has the right to travel across state lines with raw dairy products in their possession, 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 Georgia resident Eric Wagoner, who was ordered by an FDA employee in a confrontation just months ago to dump out milk obtained in South Carolina and brought to him in Georgia.

More than 100 gallons of milk soaked into the Georgia dirt:

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 and 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 states 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 Pennsylvania at 5 a.m.

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 U.S.," asserted Steve Green on the Food Freedom blog. "It is to our food what the bailout was to our economy, only we can live without money."

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.