Regulation

Why Buy the Cow?

Legal weed, jokes about communists, and the perils of purchasing your own milk maker.

|

“I still can’t believe they took our yogurt. There’s a medical marijuana shop a couple miles away, and they’re raiding us because we’re selling raw dairy products?” When the Rawesome organic food coop in Venice, California, was raided by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office, the Los Angeles County Sheriff, the Ventura County Sheriff, and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, plus the federal Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture in late June, one of the store’s volunteers was widely quoted expressing incredulity that dairy products would attract more attention from law enforcement than weed.

And it’s a funny line; we’re used to thinking of pot as something that must be purchased in secret and under elaborate ruses, while milk can be bought in the open. (Substitute fried chicken for marijuana, and you can find the same joke driving a recent episode of South Park inspired by a Reason cover.) But for the people who produce, sell, or drink unpasteurized milk, the comparison between medical marijuana and raw dairy is all too apt. Both are governed by a patchwork of state laws, some of which can be surprisingly liberal, but nearly all of which are vague enough to leave entrepreneurs with a massive amount of uncertainty about the viability of their business. Sale or distribution of both substances across state lines is essentially forbidden and operations attempting to go legit are restricted by the boundaries of the state where their cows or cannabis grow. Federal agents have a habit of involving themselves in actions within states as well, often in an unpredictable way.

Raw milk devoteesâ€"like medical marijuana fansâ€"make claims for their consumable of choice ranging from the relatively uncontroversial (unpasteurized milk tastes richer and fresher) to the unlikely (raw milk cures autism).  When people buy and drink raw milk, they tend to do so advisedly, understanding that they are trading safety for taste or other desired attributes, just as marijuana patients tend to notice that smoking dope involves, well, smoking and a certain amount of dopeyness.

No one is proposing that raw milk become the national standardâ€"pasteurization was a great boon for food safety and isn’t going anywhere. But as more people become interested in raw milk, raids on dairies are becoming increasingly common, according to Pete Kennedy of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. And attempts to accommodate an increasing byzantine and inconsistent body of law become more difficult and expensive.

Headlines about  â€œrenegade” dairy farmers aside, raw milk producers don't tend to be people who enjoy breaking rules or living with any more uncertainty than their occupation already provides. But sometimes trying to do the right thing just draws more regulatory attention. The same day Rawesome was raided, one of its suppliers was also hit. The Palmer family is trying their darnedest to figure how to comply with the law. The problem is that laws that specifically address this area of commercial activity are few and far between, and tend to be open to a variety of interpretations. Thus the third raid on the Palmer’s farm in late June, resulting in, among other things, the family’s third confiscated computer and the removal of a supply of raw milk they planned to use to feed other animals, not people.

Or consider the case of Brigitte Ruthman, a woman running a very small-scale dairy in the Berkshiresâ€"she has a single cow that started giving milk in April. Last week, she received a cease and desist letter from the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture.

Fans of raw milk and other forbidden dairy products often say that their fallback plan to is buy their own cow or goat if the crackdowns get worse, as the excellent site The Complete Patient points out in its coverage of the Massachusetts case. But unless you’re planning to drink a cow’s output every day, the logical thing to do is share the cow with some friends or neighbors. And that’s where you get in trouble. Ruthman’s was co-owned by three milk drinkers, an arrangement she believed made her enterprise legal. Massachusetts law doesn’t have much to say about such “herdshare” arrangements. In fact, it doesn’t say anything at all on the subject. Ruthman sought out advice on how to make her operation legit but got mixed messages from the state. And the cease-and-desist letter is likely just the beginning of a long legal battle over her cows.

Since at least the 1930s, some version of this series of jokes has been in circulation, via chain letter, newspaper reprint, and eventually email forwards. Sometimes it travels under the name "a parable of isms." This version from 1940 is pretty typical:

Socialism: If you have two cows, you give one to your neighbor.
Communism: If you have two cows, you give them to the government and the government then gives you some milk.
Fascism: If you have two cows, you keep the cows and give the milk to the government; then the government sells you some milk.
New Dealism: if you have two cows, you shoot one and milk the other; then you pour the milk down the drain.
Nazism: If you have two cows, the government shoots you and keeps the cows.
Capitalism: If you have two cows, you sell one and buy a bull.

In recent years and days, the joke has taken a literal and unfunny turn here in the U.S. The latest addition to the joke is something like this:

Nanny Stateism: If you have two cows, we’re going to show up at your house at dawn with a cease-and-desist letter and forbid you to do anything useful with their milk until you comply with General Laws Chapter 94, Sections 13 and 16 through 16K, Chapter 94A, and the regulations found in 330 CMR 27.00 et seq.

See? Not funny.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

Advertisement

NEXT: Shakespearean Economics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Dope” hasn’t meant marijuana for about a generation ? nowadays it means heroin.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dope

    1. Yeah dope is about as out of date as “whacky tobaccy” (which I had the pleasure of hearing an old lady say the other day).

      1. Oh man! That went out of style?

    2. It’s probably regional. I’ve mainly heard it in reference to marijuana and rarely, if ever, to heroin.

      1. You can call pot dope if you want. This is post 90’s, you can do anything you want. I personally use the terms “reefer” and “drugs” to refer to marijuana.

        1. you wanna smoke some reefers? Nah, I just shoot it these days…

  2. Typo – withing should be within.

  3. I don’t know why you people think raw milk is so awesome. Everyone knows that milk is an unnatural and unhealthy diet for human beings.

    http://answers.yahoo.com/quest…..201AAptUxw

    Plus, I don’t see any evidence that any of these “raw” milk producers control for things like hormones and antibiotics. If you drink it raw, you’r probably getting even more of these substances in your body than even the normal milk.

    1. I also direct you to think list of milk alternatives:

      http://foodallergies.about.com…..atives.htm

      Hemp Milk
      A newer milk alternative, hemp milk may be difficult to find in some places. Its protein level and texture fall in between that of rice and soy milk. It is more watery than regular milk when poured, but has enough protein for use in some cooking applications — sauces that don’t rely on large amounts of protein, for example.

      Hemp is truly a miracle plant!

      1. In other news, hemp replaces all known substances for every industry. Even for the ceramics used on spacecraft.

        1. I bet it wouldn’t have melted like that steel in the World Trade Center did, either.

          1. That only happened because of the hemp-thermite.

            1. If only the fire department had had their hemp ladders and hemp jumper bags in place that fateful day…

            2. nanothermite look it up

              neocons wouldn’t know anything about the pools of molten iron

        2. I know its advocates go overboard, but if it was any other plant, people would be amazed by the number of uses it has:

          Drug (recreational);
          Drug (medicinal – MS pain);
          Drug (medicinal – glaucoma);
          Drug (medicinal – anti-emetic);
          Fibers – can replace jute, canvas, cotton, and wood pulp;
          Seeds – can be eaten or used for cooking oil.

          That’s a hell of a lot for one plant to do.

          1. Seeds – can be eaten

            Really? They can be eaten, but would anyone want to do so?

            1. They don’t taste bad. And depending on the buds, you may have more than you need for planting.

            2. We use hemp oil to make our vegan gluten-free pot brownies.

              1. I know Tibetans used the oil for a lot of their cooking.

              2. We use hemp oil to make our vegan gluten-free pot brownies.

                Gluten-free. Lemme guess, you use honey for the sweetener and carob for the “chocolate”.

                I don’t mind if you like it. That’s fine. But PLEASE, stop trying to convince anybody that it is actually enjoyable. I bet you even hippy-up the pot so it tastes like crap too.

                1. Honey isn’t always considered vegan, so I doubt it.

            3. Maybe so, but the soybean is a unsung botanical too… used for a lot of products.

              1. That and jacking up men’s estrogen levels until their voices soften and they sprout man-boobs.

                Soy may be nice for women, but men who ingest it regularly are really messing up their bodies.

                1. I don’t think women need to be injesting massive amounts of soy, either, really

      2. Organic Girl! So nice to have you back. The usual trolls grow uninteresting.

        Milk is bad, bad, bad. Meat too? Eggs? Butter? Pleasure? They say that a pint of whiskey a day isn’t supposed to be good for you either. WTF do they know?!

        1. God Damn Right!

    2. Yeah! And while we’re at it, let’s make incorrect yoga postures illegal, too!

      Those two-bit yogis don’t tell you how dangerous the “sideways dog” or the “garter snake” postures can be. You’re probably leaking MORE prana out of your 3rd and 4th chacras even than when doing a half-assed sun salutation!!! lolzzzz!

      1. It’s spelled “chakra” dumb-ass.

        1. His name is spelled “Dumas” you ignorant slut.

        2. Actually it’s spelled ????? dumbass. It’s a madeup transliterated word. Get over yourself.

    3. “I don’t know why you people think raw milk is so awesome. Everyone knows that milk is an unnatural and unhealthy diet for human beings.”

      I know lactose issue are very real for some people, but the fact is many people find dairy to be quite tolerable in even large quantities and a good source of protein, vitamins, and fat. Making blanket statements like this harms your credibility. And as a resident of Wisconsin after speaking to many people in the raw milk movement, I can assure you that raw milk farmers are very concerned about things like antibiotics/bgh/feed issues etc.

      1. Milk is not an unnatural diet for humans. With millennia of living with cows people have evolved, through natural selection, to be able to digest it. Maybe before cows were domesticated it was unnatural, but now our bodies have adapted. Unless you are a creationist I do not see how that is unnatural.

    4. Judging by your name you also believe in eating products with dubious health benefits but none of us are call for a ban on organic foods.

      1. Organic foods don’t involve the systematic abuse of animals or the planet.

        1. What about wild game hunting. These animals are not put through the same abuses like the disgusting feed lots. Are they not considered organic?

        2. Organic foods don’t involve the systematic abuse of animals or the planet.

          And when yields are so low that you have to chop down every last bit of forest on the planet in order to be able to feed everyone with magic organic veggie goodness…..well, you replaced the forests with organic gardens, so it’s not Gaia-rape?

          1. Yields don’t have to be low. In fact you can grow several crops in the same field – nitrogen fixing ones in between the rows, for instance.

            You have to hand harvest them, which is better than smoke belching combines and tractors, anyway. Anyhow, society should return to a more ecologically friendly agrarian past. Everyone should take off a month in the fall to help with the harvest. It would be healthy exercise and socially unifying. Not to mention spiritually fulfilling – we would go back to having traditional harvest festivals and such.

            The population might be somewhat reduced, but everyone would be happier.

            Personally, I think we ought to have some kind of blanket sterilization program to reduce the earth’s population. It’s the most humane way to get rid of the planets excess human population.

            1. So you are volunteering to be an unborn child? I guess you are not going to breed at all since your parents messed up and had you?

            2. I agree with you about the [paid for?] sterilization program. Sign me up! And I too am an organic gardener and share your farming ideals. However, it would require much more than “a month in the fall” for everybody to help with the harvest. I have found that weeds grow all through the season and it’s ongoing and very labor intensive to bring a crop to harvest.

              1. I am intrigued by your and OrganicGirl’s views. Is there a newsletter I could subscribe to so I can find out more?

            3. Organic Girl is a grade-A troll. That’s some of the best utter shit I’ve ever seen in these comment threads.

            4. Thank God I’m still free to call you an idiot. There is scant scientific evidence that any of what you have said above is true. Merely postulating that stuff is good because it’s “organic”, which used to mean made of carbon, is fine, but don’t expect any of us to believe it. Dog feces are 100% natural and organic, but I’ll thank you to not ask me to eat them. Of course, by writing your screed, I suppose you have done so. How about posting some legitimate, verifiable evidence to support your outlandish claims?

              There is no evidence, either, that the planet is overpopulated with people. We might actually be able to have more people if whackjobs such as yourself didn’t get DDT banned largely based on a scary book. How does it feel to be complicit in allowing millions of people, including many children, to die of malaria? Oh, I forget, it’s okay, because you care so much about the good old Earth, a planet who clearly doesn’t give a damn about you. In case you haven’t noticed, places where old style agriculture is still practiced have a much greater incidence of violence and war, primarily because resources are so scarce.

              I do, however, support your idea of a blanket sterilization program. I nominate you to go first.

            5. Everyone will be happier except mass amounts of people starving to death, but they will all be in Asia and Africa, so it is fine. When populations drop, the reason is starvation.

              1. actually, most people die of diseases like disentery or cholera when populations drop–except maybe incambodia when folks were murdered.

            6. Please volunteer and don’t breed.

        3. You are right, we should go back to the days of subsistence farming those were the good old days… hand in hand with Gaia we were back then.

      2. >>>ban on organic foods.

        But doesn’t food HAVE to be carbon based to provide nutrition

    5. “raw” milk producers control for things like hormones and antibiotics

      My guess is most probably don’t use hormones or antibiotics. But you’d have to get to know your farmerdealer to know for sure.

      Also, all milk substitutes are totally lame when compared to the brauny righteousness of mammary secretions from lactating mammals.

      1. Yes, lactating mammals that are enslaved into confinement and servitude for the enjoyment of humans.

        How would you like to be a lactating mammal, that gets jolted with cattle prods, has your tits yanked on every day, and be kept in a cage?

        1. Is that an option? Sign me up.

          1. …”sign me up”

            HAW! I blew raw milk out my nose when I read that!!!

        2. My mom did it for 30 years, she never complained.

        3. People pay good money for that kind of treatment in Amsterdam. It is not my fault that you forgot the safe word.

        4. Evolution wise, the cow should prefer it to going extinct, which it undoubtedly would, along with the chicken and the sheep, were it not a commodity. Pigs would probably dominate though.

        5. Is that some new kinky porn?

        6. I work on a dairy farm, you dipshit, and not one thing you said has ever happened.

          But then again, I’m in Australia. Maybe you Yanks are different.

    6. Crap. Reading here has broken my sarcasm detector. Getting false positives now.

      1. You’ll get used to it.

    7. ‘Everyone knows that milk is an unnatural and unhealthy diet for human beings.”

      That’s exactly what I am going to tell the next woman I see breast feeding her child!

      1. She should at least pasteurize it first.

      2. I meant cow’s milk, obviously. You libertarians can be so stupid!

        1. Don’t confuse snark with stupidity… though some times it’s the same thing.

    8. oh please. please. please. everybody does NOT know that, because it’s a bunch of crap. if you really want to get into the science of why you are wrong, i will. but i find most hippy-crunchy-vegan-patchouli-smelling-ohnoesbovinegrowthhormoneisevil-people have no idea what they are talking about, and it’s a waste of time

      not that i would stereotype of course :l

  4. Enjoyed the article. Thanks.

    Also, typo at the end of the second paragraph. withing

  5. Add to that list of ‘isms’ with philosophies.

    Existentialism: Those cows don’t even exist, so why bother?

    1. They exist “in themselves” but not “for themselves”, since the two forms of existence cannot co-exists. Hence the impossibility of God is exemplified in the lowly cow.

      1. Type-o: co-exists => co-exist.

    2. Existence precedes Essence.

    3. Solipsism: I am imagining the cow.

  6. Hey, Organic Girl is back!

    Raw milk, processed milk, and milk alternatives should all be available to anyone who wants them.

    That is all.

    1. If, they can pay for them–otherwise lit the little dears starve in the dark

      1. typo alert: let the little dears

        snark alert

  7. And if I may correct the list of isms:

    Socialism: If you have two cows, you the government takes one and gives it one to your neighbor.

    1. Well, the gov’t wouldn’t need to be so heavy handed about it if we weren’t all such greedy fucks. What did you even needs two cows for anyway?!

      1. One was his wife

        1. In that case wouldn’t the government taking one of the cows then actually being doing good.

  8. For the life of me, I don’t understand why this can’t be handled with a simple disclosure regulation and assumption of risk on the part of the buyer/consumer. It’s not as if drinking raw milk is per-se harmful. Why are we fucking up people’s lives for this?

    1. Why are we fucking up people’s lives for this?

      Because pasteurization is a public health accomplishment that should not be rolled back. At least that’s what the northeast scientist/researcher said on NPR the other day when asked about raw milk. I think this is “greater good”/progressive territory with a dash of impotent bureaucrat sprinkled on top.

      1. So what’s the problem with, rather than going in with muzzles leveled, instead requiring the distribution of a disclosure flyer that tells people of the possible health risks? It’s not as if raw milk is going to invariably kill you.

        1. For the same reason Albertson’s is not allowed to sell you chicken that was left out all day yesterday at 70F, even if they make you sign a disclosure, and you can’t sell mercury potions over the Internet, even if you note in the EULA that some fuddy-duddies at the FDA claim thes tuff might kill you in the long run, and you can’t put your kids in public school without vaccines even if you think they (the vaccines) cause autism.

          The essential argument is that caveat emptor is not a fully acceptable public policy when it’s so directly a matter of life and death, and various innocents or incompetents might be involved in your folly.

          I’m not defending the policy per se. But given its assumptions, it makes sense. The fact that various fringe cultists run afoul of crazy-quilt regulation is mostly a result of their relative scarcity. In the same way, for example, law and policy on computer cracking was amorphous, bizarre, and inconsistent in the 1970s: there just weren’t yet enough encounters to have all the weird kinks ironed out. Those involved in law and policy tend, naturally enough, to spend the time and attention necessary to make things consistent and clear only when there are lots of interactions, when it’s a widespread (or at least very important) activity.

          It’s still, of course, a moderately plausible argument for less busybody rulemaking. I just wish the proponents of individual liberty would try harder to avoid staking out this general position in the specific context of defending screwball individual decisions by idiots. It’s like the folly of South Carolina staking out a general position in favor of Federalism and strong state’s rights — an excellent position! — in the specific context of a defense of slavery. Dumb. Very, very dumb.

          1. I don’t think your analogies hold water. Chicken left out for a day and mercury potions are per-se harmful, and immediately so, thus reasonably regulated. That is not the case with raw milk, where the vast majority of those that sell and consume it do so without adverse effect.

            1. You wouldn’t eat cooked chicken left on the counter for a day? Fucking pussy.

          2. and you can’t put your kids in public school without vaccines even if you think they (the vaccines) cause autism.

            I think it’s pretty clear at this point that public school causes autism.

          3. Carl,
            Raw milk is generally not “a matter of life and death,” nor are vaccines (but that’s a whole ‘nother issue). Raw milk has health benefits due to the enzymes, which are destroyed in pasteurization.

          4. Please, find documented evidence that raw milk, properly handled and refrigerated, is likely to cause disease. And by the way, how is it that cigarettes, which kill hundreds of thousands of people a year, are okay to be sold as far as the government is concerned if we’re so damn worried about the safety of the products we put into our bodies?

            1. The government IS worried that these things will kill you. That, obviously, is why they sell them to anyone 18 or older that are willing to pay the taxes on them.

              Of course, raw milk is a different story. People cannot make their own informed decisions on the benefit/harm potentialities until the government finds a way to expliot the manufacturers and consumers of it through taxation. Only then will people be smart enough to make their own choices.

  9. Here’s a summary of the law here:

    Farmers can sell raw milk and cream to the final consumer either on the farm or through delivery without being required to have a permit. Those interested in selling raw milk and cream other than on-farm or through delivery (e.g., farmers markets) must obtain a retail raw milk permit from the state and must have state approved bottling equipment on the premises. In addition, farmers with a retail raw milk permit must comply with state labeling regulations for raw milk and raw milk products.

    Simple, straightforward and minimally intrusive. And I can’t think of a single publicized case of anyone getting sick from drinking raw milk in Missouri.

    1. I’m not sure what the point of a farmers market is if the participants have to obey all the regs of a grocery store.

      What exactly is the dividing line between me selling milk on my farm, and me selling milk from my stand at the farmers market?

      must have state approved bottling equipment on the premises

      What part of expensive equipment is “minimally intrusive”?

      1. hey, they’ll get my raw milk when they pry my cold stiff lips from the udder!

      2. I’d kinda go along with that, but I think that the point is that if you start selling raw milk from commercial outlets as opposed to from your farm, you’re starting to take on the trappings of a commercial dairy and should then operate as one, albeit without the pasteurization equipment.

        The biggest benefit, as far as I can see, is that Missouri’s law is far less ambiguous than those of the states mentioned in the article. That, at least, gives raw milk producers clear legal room to operate in so they aren’t harrassed even when they’re making good-faith efforts to comply with the regulations.

  10. what was i going to say~?~~

  11. Herbert Shelton, a nutritionist who wrote about proper diet for health children stated many years ago:

    “The London Lancet reported, a few years ago, some experiments by an English physician who fed a number of kittens and puppies on pasteurized milk. They died. Kittens and puppies fed on raw milk thrived well.

    The digestibility of the milk is markedly impaired. It produces constipation and if fed exclusively, scurvy, rickets, scrofulosis and kindred diseases. Dogs fed pasteurized milk develop mange and other disorders. The same litter, fed on raw milk thrived. Pasteurized milk is simply not capable of sustaining life, health and growth for very long.

    The infant death-rate in Toronto, Canada is 20 per cent higher than that of London, England, and double that of rural Ontario. Toronto uses pasteurized milk while both London and rural Ontario use natural milk. When pasteurized milk was substituted for raw milk in Toronto, the death rate in three of the city’s largest homes and hospitals for children increased.

    In many instances there is nothing wrong with babies except that they are being starved by being fed pasteurized milk. Babies do not thrive, and cease to thrive on heated milk. These same babies do well when changed to raw milk.

    Digestibility Of Pasteurized Milk
    S. L. Harris, bacteriologist, Janesville, Wis., says that “pasteurization destroys some of the very important constituents and makes them indigestible. The albuminoids are coagulated. The sugars.are broken down, and to some extent the colloids are agglutinated.”

    (end of excerpts)

    Pasteurized homogenized milk begins to cause arteriosclerotic damage in children as soon as they begin to consume it on a regular basis. That is why during the Vietnam War, 18 years olds routinly showed damage that was once seen only in older folks.

    1. You know that responsible parents don’t actually give infants pasteurized milk, right? It’s either raw (human) milk or formula.

      If the choice between raw and pasteurized cow’s milk has any bearing on infant death rates anywhere in this day and age, it’s evolution at work.

    2. Kittens and puppies aside, it appears that perhaps pasteurized milk may actually be good for calves:

      http://www.afia.org/Afia/Files/BAMN- BSE- DDGS- Biosecurity Awareness/Feeding PasteurizedMilktoDairyCalves1i.pdf

      As for your source, Herbert Shelton, I don’t think I would necessarily trust a “Doctor of Naturopathy” – probably not the most scientific of degrees.

  12. Missing from most lists is:

    Apartheid: you have two cows. The government demands that you keep the black cow separately from the white one, and that you prove the white cow is indeed white.

  13. Obamaism: If you have two cows the government sends you a letter saying they gave your grandson’s cows to the bank.

  14. Obamaism: If you have two cows the government will dig a hole put your cows in the hole fill it back up and then post a sign telling you how much stimulus money was spent burying your cows.

    1. They will tell you how many jobs were “saved or created” by burying the cows.

  15. Obamaism: If you have two cows you will ask the government not to take your cows and MSNBC, daily Kos, The Washington Post and the New York Times will call you a racist.

    1. Obamaism: You have two cows. They both join the SEIU and you wind up milking the bull.

  16. Bushism: If you have two cow the government will invade Iraq.

  17. The web is very good!I like it !

  18. I’m the hated milk machine. Everybody hates me now.

    1. Thought I was the only person who ever saw that! The Joke: The Musical. Classic.

      1. That sketch is really ironic, since it seems like it’s supposed to argue in favor of government arts funding, but clearly demonstrates why that’s such a bad idea, and it was financed, written and performed by private enterprise! Anyway, sorry, what were talking about?

  19. “You know that responsible parents don’t actually give infants pasteurized milk, right? It’s either raw (human) milk or formula.”

    Responsible parents don’t give their kids formula.

    1. Really??? So if a woman is unable to nurse an infant, then it’s either hiring a wet nurse or starving the child?

      That’s ignorant.

    2. Yeah, cos it would have been so responsible to let our first son go on rapidly losing weight because my wife simply didn’t have enough to feed him.

      Or to keep feeding our second son breastmilk when he was allergic to it.

      Ignorant arsefuck.

  20. Here in Mexico, you can buy raw milk everywhere. They even deliver it by burro in the villages. We pasturize it at home about a gallon a month and drink some, make cheese and yoghurt with the rest.

  21. Nothing was said about the fact the the corporate dairy lobby is the key political force that is behind the law. This is not about government but about big business against small business. So, how would you rewrite this article understanding that you blew the assignment the first time?

    1. I seriously doubt that. I’ve done a fir amount of work at commercial dairies, and a small one processes several million pounds of milk per day. A few gallons of raw milk from small farms doesn’t make the difference of a spit in a river to them.

  22. Nearly every dairy around me has employees that come and sell raw milk at the local farmer’s market. More often than not, these employees are taking the milk and doing this on their own, but they still do it with little or no government interference that I’ve seen or heard of.

    Of course, maybe it’s because the people selling the raw milk are Hispanics that are most certainly here illegally. The cops don’t want to get into the headache associated with asking for their permit, which would lead to a lot of other questions (i.e.: paperwork), so they leave these people alone.

    That being said, these are huge commercial dairies that are already under heavy regulation.(I live in the part of the Central Valley of CA where dairies and beef are the biggest moneymakers by a long shot) I guess my point is: These people should send their raw milk to market by way of illegal immigrants to avoid regulatory interference. Typically, bureaucrats are too lazy to do all of the paperwork required to process these people when they could more easily strongarm the next white or black person they see doing something they don’t like…or they can extort taxes from.

  23. “I still can’t believe they took our yogurt. There’s a medical marijuana shop a couple miles away, and they’re raiding us because we’re selling raw dairy products?”

    While this lacks context, if most obvious context is used then I have a hard time feeling sorry for this person.

    1. What’s also missing in all the sound and fury over this incident, is that much ado is being made apparently without all the facts.

      For instance, the much touted security footage. Cop strolls in pretty casually, says something on his radio … cut to – cop pointing his gun at someone.

      Looks pretty over the top, but obvious question – what happened during the cut? Presumably something made the cop draw his gun.

      Did somebody with an outstanding warrant make a bolt for it (a hippy with an outstanding warrant? Never!). There has also been mention of employees with handheld thermometers that look not unlike pistols. Given that folk have been shot for pulling their wallet out, and that this is LA after all, it’s perhaps not surprising that a cop might get jumpy if he sees someone emerging with a pistol-like apparatus.

      Who know? Maybe the cop was just an arsehole?

      But that’s my point, we don’t have the full picture here.

      (of course, there is the possibility that more info has emerged in the days since I first saw this video, so I may well end up looking like an idiot. If so, I’ll take a pre-emptive bullet and pwn myself, thank you very much 🙂 )

  24. Cow picture is awesome.

  25. “…expressing incredulity that dairy products would attract more attention from law enforcement than weed…”

    Those running around calling themselves government have lost the “war” against weed. They have been trying to admit it without disclosing it to the public, but the “war” against pot has run its course.

  26. Expanded version of the “two cows” bit: http://www.alphasite.us/CowOwnership.html

  27. Milk can provide our body the required nutrition .http://www.camel-cigarettes.org

  28. Milk can provide our body the required nutrition. http://www.camel-cigarettes.org

    1. How is this going to let me browse the web with complete anonymity?

  29. what a handsome cow

  30. good article

  31. This story draws a false parallel by attempting to equate the legality (or not) of selling raw milk vs. marijuana. The former is clearly not legal while the latter is at most questionably legal and at least tolerated by the authorities.

    From 1998 to May 2005, raw milk or raw-milk products have been implicated in 45 foodborne illness outbreaks in the United States, accounting for more than 1,000 cases of illness, according to the CDC…and that’s a conservative estimate since many cases may have gone unreported.

  32. If you have room for a cow, you probably have room for a couple of pigs; feed them corn soaked in any of the extra milk (after skimming the cream for cooking purposes if you desire). It will be the best pork you’ve ever tasted.

  33. Raw milk is more dangerous than marijuana. A person visiting your home may not know the milk in the fridge is the variety that came directly from a cow. Labeled or not, they may just see a milk jug and use it. I once did this with some soy milk the wife had in the fridge. Disgusting. Marijuana is unlikely to be mistaken for anything other than the magical devil weed it is.

  34. Obamanomics: If you finance a 10,000 square foot air-conditioned barn for two cows, but the two cows don’t make enough to pay the mortgage, the government will bail you and your bank out as long as you hire 10 union workers to milk the cows at $50/hr plus benefits.

  35. Eating meat is wrong.

  36. I propose a separation of economics and state.

  37. So why not another California ballot initiative?

  38. It’s probably regional. I’ve mainly heard it in reference to marijuana and rarely, if ever, to heroin.

  39. There are many uses for biological species (food, medicine, etc) so they obviously can be seen as a resource that is beneficial to mankind. We are fortunate to have such a biodiversity to mine for our uses, and future generations deserve that opportunity also. So to destroy species is a harm to future humans, and (IMO) should be strongly avoided.

  40. Why buy the cow…….this article is ironic.some regulation in the present can’t understand why should to obey

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.