Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

OT: Mennonite Farmer Arrested for Selling Raw Milk to Other Mennonites

Expand Messages
  • The Chicago Dog Whisperer
    Hello, I mostly lurk but I thought this story was important. If it is very off-topic, dear moderators, you can remove it. ami moore chicago
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 29, 2008
      I mostly lurk but I thought this story was important. If it is very
      off-topic, dear moderators, you can remove it.
      ami moore chicago
      This is a long article about a man arrested for selling raw milk to
      private customers. Read to the end and find the relationship again
      between Hillary and Monsanto.

      The milk here in MN is by Kemp's and is labeled rBGH Free.


      The Criminalization of Raw Milk A Mennonite Farmer is Hauled Away By
      On April 25, 2008, in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Mark Nolt, a
      Wenger Mennonite (Horse and Buggy Mennonite) dairyman, threatened for
      months with arrest for selling raw milk without a permit was removed
      from his property by state troopers.
      Jonas Stoltzfus, a friend, fellow farmer, and Church of the Brethen,
      was asked by Mr. Nolt to speak for him, and said of the raid
      yesterday - "Six state troopers and a man with the Pennsylvania
      Department of Agriculture trespassed onto his property, and stole $20-
      25,000 of his product and equipment."
      Mr. Stoltzfus explained that Mr. Nolt did not have a permit
      because "he chose to turn his permit back in because it did not cover
      all the products he was selling. He felt he was being dishonest
      selling stuff that was not covered by the permit. He is a man of
      great integrity."
      "According to reports from neighbors and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal
      Defense Fund, several officials of the Pennsylvania Department of
      Agriculture participated in the raid, and while Mark was being
      transported by police car to the courthouse, PDA officials
      confiscated $20,000 to $25,000 worth of dairy products and production
      equipment. Neighbors reported the farm had been closed and that a
      large group of officials had gathered, with videos prohibited."
      "Mr. Nolt was told that people had gotten sick from eating his food,
      but no one ever came forward and no proof was ever offered."
      "This is a Gestapo raid," Jonas Stotlzfus said, "complete with state
      troopers, raiding a hard-working farmer selling milk to friends and
      customers. And his customers ARE his friends." Mr. Nolt
      Mr. Stoltzfus said of Mr. Nolt, "he is not going to stop [selling raw
      milk] til he is ready to stop. He is the equivalent of that little
      black lady in Alabama who wouldn't go to the back of the bus. He is
      doing the same thing, he won't go to the back of bus." Mr. Stoltzfus
      said "she got arrested for that and so did Mr. Nolt. He ignored [the
      threat] and kept on selling. He is a courageous man." Mr. Stoltzfuz
      said "Mark believes it is his right to sell, according to the
      constitution, just like it was Rosa Park's right to sit wherever she
      wanted on the bus. Same deal. There is nothing in the constitution to
      prevent Mr. Nolt from buying and selling, especially to his friends,"
      Mr. Stoltzfus said.
      Stoltzfus commented that Mr Sheridan of the Pennsylvania Department
      of Agriculture (Stoltzfus does not have the spelling and believes he
      is with the licensing division) used to work for Dean Foods and
      Hershey Foods, big corporate operations, and that Sheridan
      was "jealous that farmers make a better product" and called the raid
      by Mr. Sheridan "a vendetta."
      This case is similar to that involving Meadowsweet Dairy LLC in New
      York, in that both Pennsylvania and New York allow raw milk sales,
      but adamantly oppose the sale of other raw dairy products.
      Mr. Nolt was doing things the way his community has for generations,
      selling milk straight from his cows to those he knows.
      Mr. Nolt contends that the regulations have not been approved by the
      legislature and shouldn't apply to him because he is selling directly
      to consumers, via private contracts that are outside the purview of
      the state, making a privilege out of a right he believes he has - the
      right to private contracts."
      The permitting issue, ostensibly for food safety, is contradicted by
      a look both at raw milk itself and at its competition, corporate
      milk - pasteurized and often from cows injected with rBGH.
      Four issues stand out:
      1. INDEPENDENCE of farmer and customers
      Raw milk: Farmer sell raw milk from their own cows, to neighbors and
      friends at a price farmers set themselves, paid by people who value
      their product, without a middleman.
      A growing number of people prefer raw milk (unpasteurized milk),
      considering it not only safe but healthier than pasteurized milk
      because it is still rich in pro-biotics not killed off by
      pasteurization. l
      Farming communities have consumed raw milk for generations. The
      exchange between farmers and neighbors play a central part in the web
      of relations sustaining those communities. Yet raw milk is banned in
      many states.
      Corporate milk: Dairy farmers sell their milk to milk "producers" who
      pasteurize it, may add things to it, bottle it, distribute it, often
      at great distances. Dairy farmers must accept a price set by others,
      in a large competitive market. Nothing in the process promotes local
      farming communities.
      "...The system of influence and control..is highly skewed in favor of
      the corporate and financial system." - Vincente Navarro, (Professor
      of Health and Social Policy, John Hopkins U.).
      2. HEALTH
      Raw milk:
      "[For years, m]illions [in California] consumed commercial raw
      milk, ... not a single incidence was reported. During the same
      period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized
      milk, some of which resulted in death. [I]f we withdrew ... every
      food type responsible for a case of food poisoning, there would be
      virtually nothing left to eat. But only raw milk has been singled out
      for general removal from the food supply.
      "... the bacteria in raw milk is the healthy bacteria of lactic-acid
      fermentation while the bacteria in pasteurized milk is the bacteria
      of spoilage. ... Both raw and pasteurized milk contain E. coli,
      normally a benign microorganism. The most likely source of the new
      strains of virulent E. coli is genetically engineered soy, fed to
      cows in large commercial dairies. If there is any type of milk likely
      to harbor these virulent breeds, it is commercial pasteurized
      milk. ... Children fed raw milk have more resistance to TB, scurvy,
      flu, diphtheria, pneumonia, asthma, allergic skin problems and tooth
      decay. In addition, their growth and calcium absorption was
      superior." (In California, there is currently an effort to ban raw
      "Four distinct groups of bacteria survive pasteurization....the strep
      of pasteurized milk are the most frequent cause of rheumatic fever --
      the most deadly disease of childhood.'" - USDA
      Corporate milk:
      During the Clinton administration, a new study was released "conclud
      [ing] that milk from cows injected with [genetically engineered
      bovine growth hormone - rBGH) increases risks of breast and colon
      cancers in humans.
      "rBGH poses an even greater risk to human health than ever
      considered," warned Samuel Epstein M.D., Professor of Environmental
      Medicine .... "The FDA and Monsanto have a lot to answer for. Given
      the cancer risks, and other health concerns, why is rBGH milk still
      on the market?"
      Since 1986, independent scientists have expressed concern about the
      lack of research on rBGH milk.
      Michael Colby, Executive Director of Food and Water
      said, "Monsanto 's claims that rBGH is perfectly safe have been
      proven dead wrong today .... Only Monsanto is benefiting from this
      drug. It's time for dairy companies to side with consumers by
      adopting a policy that they will not allow rBGH, under any
      circumstances, to be used by their farmers."
      Epstein said: "The entire nation is currently being subjected to a
      large-scale adulteration of an age-old dietary staple by a poorly
      characterized and unlabeled biotechnology product which is very
      different than natural milk."
      In 2007 - when Mark Nolt was first arrested for selling raw milk
      (natural milk) - a citizens' petition to the FDA on rBGH milk showed
      30 scientific journals indicating an up-to-7-fold increased risk of
      breast cancer, and an increased risk of colon and prostate cancern.
      3. PROMOTION
      Raw milk is sold primarily through word of mouth.
      Corporate milk is promoted through large, expensive ad campaigns.
      The California Milk Processor Board is now targeting teens:
      "Goodby, Silverstein and Partners created a page on MySpace to
      promote White Gold and the Calcium Twins, a team of new fictitious
      characters turned rock stars who spread their love of and devotion to
      milk through music. TV spots, print ads and PR will also support the
      "The Milk Processor Education Program ... is funded by the nation's
      milk processors ... committed to increasing fluid milk consumption."
      4. LABELIING
      Raw milk is just milk. Those who buy it know that and seek it out for
      that reason.
      On the corporate side, Monsanto continues pushing bans on labeling
      rBGH-milk. Customers usually do not know they are consuming rBGH milk.
      During its approval process,
      "FDA scientist, Dr Richard Burroughs concluded ... Monsanto was
      manipulating the [test] figures. In 1989 he was sacked after
      complaining to Congress ... To deal with the ... controversy Monsanto
      assembled ...PR companies ... of which [BURSON-MARSTELLER] was one."
      During the Clinton administration, Monsanto employees were appointed
      to run the FDA. Monsanto's rBGH - the first genetically engineered
      product ever, was approved.
      "[In]1994, people at the FDA [wrote] an anonymous letter to ...
      Congress, [fearing] retribution ... The basis of our concern is that
      Dr. Margaret Miller ... wrote the FDA's opinion on why milk from
      [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However, before coming to
      the FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as
      a researcher on [rbGH]."
      In 1996, there was a press conference on rBGH's medical risks. "Given
      the potential health impacts of consumption of milk and other dairy
      products derived from rBGH treated cows, all such products at a
      minimum be labeled so that consumers are aware of what they are
      purchasing and consuming. More prudently the FDA approval of rBGH
      should be withdrawn until the agency performs adequate long term
      testing ..."
      "... Wisconsin, Minnesota, California and Vermont attempted to
      enforce labelling of milk produced with, and containing, this
      hormone. Their efforts were thwarted by Burson-Marsteller acting on
      behalf of these companies."
      Burson-Marsteller has been a long-term (now campaign) advisor to
      Hillary Clinton, through its CEO, Mark Penn. And Monsanto's effort to
      ban labeling of the milk continues today.
      Banning of labeling of rBGH milk in effect puts millions of Americans
      into a human experiment with genetic engineering, exposing them to
      greatly increased risk of cancers. The Nuremberg Code makes clear
      that experimental subjects must give informed consent.
      Mr. Stoltzfus added up losses for Mark Nolt: "Trepass on private
      property, private personal merchandise stolen, being deprived of a
      significant amount of hard work he and his family put together. He is
      being deprived of the opportunity to market his product now, they are
      throwing it away. It's a shame."
      Mr. Nolt did not have a permit. He has twice lost thousands of
      dollars of work or material, and faces jail.
      Monsanto sells rBGH-milk associated with cancers, Clinton hired
      Monsanto employees which approved their own genetically engineered
      product, Hillary Clinton has been silent up to today about the risk
      rBGH poses to women, PR firms strongly push the milk on all ages.
      None face jail or fines for altered facts, for PR campaigns
      encouraging even children to drink rBGH-milk, or for banning labeling
      of it, which has put the entire US population at medical risk for
      years. Monsanto, the Clintons, Burson-Marsteller and Goodby,
      Silverstein and Partners are all making millions.
      Mr. Nolt, released after being taken off by state troopers, refused
      to accept a ride from them. He started walking. Friends gave him a
      lift home.
      Linn Cohen-Cole can be reached at: lcohencole@...
    • mstrong56
      My MD, who eats and advocates a mostly raw all vegan diet, tells me ANY kind of milk is complete poison and cancer/disease fuel. Vegan anti-milk guy Robert
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 30, 2008
        My MD, who eats and advocates a mostly raw all vegan diet, tells me
        ANY kind of milk is complete poison and cancer/disease fuel. Vegan
        anti-milk guy Robert Cohen (see notmilk.com ) says much as he
        dislikes corporate agriculture and Monsanto, that raw milk is even
        more dangerous. The Weston Price people seem particularly deluded
        http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_facts_fiction.htm )

        As a long time vegan, I have no dog in this fight. As a long time
        libertarian I believe if you wish to purchase and consume any
        properly labeled item that has been shown to shorten or risk your
        life, then that is your business, not the state's. As long as you
        are not risking the lives of others or infringing upon their freedom
        of action and enjoyment of their own life, then you should be free to
        weed yourself out of the gene pool as you see fit, in fact I STRONGLY
        encourage it.

        Where the state's interest comes into play, legitimately, is in
        protecting children. Let's say you purchase raw dairy because you
        are stupid and misinformed and feed it to your children and they die
        as quite a few have recently, then one can say the state did have a
        responsibility to regulate or restrict the sale of the "food" you
        gave to your children. This is no different than the state being
        able to arrest you for not having your kids in child seats. Children
        are helpless and from what I observe, many adults are stupid
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.