Posted on 01/22/2014 5:04:36 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
A proposed Maryland bill would restore the right of the states’ citizens to participate in cow shares, or cow boarding, to obtain raw milk. Maryland citizens lost the right to raw milk via cow shares in 2006, when the appointed director of the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene redefined the word “sale” to include agistments. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for January 28 at 1:00pm at the Lowe House Office Building in Annapolis.
Cow shares or cow boarding refers to a practice in which people buy shares in individual animals for a portion of the milk they produce. These people may not own the land or have the skill or time necessary to own a cow (and since cows produce far too much milk for a single family to consume selling shares even makes sense for people who are able to own a cow or two), but the farmer is paid to care for the animals and distribute the milk to the cows’ owners. It is a very popular way of getting around raw milk bans nationwide.
Since the undemocratically passed ban on cow shares in Maryland criminalized this practice, the state’s residents have been forced to look elsewhere for their milk (participating in cow shares across state lines, as the sale of milk across state lines is illegal on the federal level), while hundreds of Maryland raw and natural dairy farms have closed down.
House Bill 3 was filed by Annapolis Delegates James Hubbard (D-23A) and Nic Kipke (R-31). Hubbard and Kipke point to a variety of reasons for proposing the legislation. They say it will help local farmers, create more economic opportunities, and would help keep agriculture local. In keeping sales of agricultural products local, the bill could help more money stay in the state and in individual communities, prompting Hubbard to call the bill a “win-win-win.”
A hearing on the issue will take place in Annapolis’s Lowe House Office Building on January 28 at 1:00pm. In addition to the environmental, economic and tax benefits, the bill has obvious freedom implications. It would re-open and renew a whole new, increasingly popular market. Raw milk advocates say that unpasteurized dairy has significant health benefits, including increased protein, vitamins, minerals and probiotics.
Maryland “Freak State” PING!
Nanny state PING!
Wait raw milk is banned? Thats just insane, nanny state liberals at it again
According to the Government of New Zealand, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says improperly handled raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other foodborne disease outbreak, making it one of the world's most dangerous food products\
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteurization
health standards today are a little now better then in 1912 so i dont think a outbreak like this would happened now
Welcome to 2014, where we have quick tests for bacteria that cause diseases. Technology improves life, and saves lives.
/johnny
If you want to drink raw milk then have at it. But anyone trying to claim that the benefits of raw milk -- if they even exist -- outweigh the risks of drinking raw milk, isn't thinking clearly.
As a food service professional, I am well aware of the pathogens in raw milk as well as other raw foods.
Bottom line is that I'd rather risk raw milk from healthy cows than raw romaine lettuce that may have been contaminated by 'fecal splashing' from field hands without access to toilets.
/johnny
Caveat emptor. It's none of the government's business to outlaw raw milk.
/johnny
“Improperly handled” suggests that the cause and prevention was well known even then.
On raw milk? By statute? I don't think so.
I'd rather risk raw milk from healthy cows
Healthy cows can be rife with bacteria dangerous to humans. Just because a cow is healthy doesn't mean the milk is safe. As a guy who worked on dairy farms, I can assure you that there is no way to fully sterilize an udder. I can also relate stories of milking room floors that will dispel any myths about the existence of clean milking rooms, especially in winter.
Raw milk is not being tested for all of the many pathogens that could be present. If you were truly "aware" of them you wouldn't be drinking raw milk. But like I said before, if that's what you want to do, then have at it. I don't see any benefits from raw milk vs. pasteurized, only risks.
matters of public health, safety, and welfare fall squarely within the realm of “the government’s business” and always have.
WAPF ping.
Message me to be added to this very low volume Weston A. Price Foundation ping list.
And not everything involving health or safety should be regulated by the government. Unless you want a nanny state.
/johnny
The government has no business or authority other than that which the people give it. That is the foundation of this republic.
I do not wish to have a nanny state but I do not wish to return to the era of snake oil salesmen and rampant foodborne illnesses either. I would go so far as to say that I wish the FDA went a little further and ensured that our pets were not eating contaminated food.
I don’t mind if the government ensures that our food and drugs are safe. most people don’t. In fact, no disrespect intended, but I think you will find that you are in the minority on this issue. As such, the people have given the government this authority which the supreme court has long upheld as constitutional. This is all settled science and settled law.
Since another foundational principle of our republic is that the minority is protected by the rule of law I have no problem being in a minority on any subject. As far as the law being “settled” it is only settled until the people decide to change it and that is Constitutional as well. As is being proved in Maryland in this case.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.