Austin, TX –The casual observer driving by the scene on May 26 might think a drug bust was going on, or that authorities were intervening in some actual nefarious activity. But no, the State enforcement agents were exerting their might on individuals doing nothing more than buying food from one another.
A mother with her two children was harassed to the point of tears by four inspectors from the City of Austin Health Department and Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), for organizing a group of customers picking up raw milk.
The milk came from a licensed, inspected dairy located two hours away from Austin, and the customers had hired a courier to bring it to them at a private home. It had already been paid for. This fully legitimate arrangement nonetheless served as the pretext for a shameful abuse of power.
The Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance describes the incident:
“The inspectors proceeded to tell the customers that they could not take possession of the milk, ignoring protests that they had already paid for that milk. The inspectors also ignored the statement from the courier that he had a signed agreement with the customers making him their agent – and instead falsely wrote on the inspection report that the courier worked for the farmer.
The inspectors refused to speak to an attorney the courier called for assistance. Instead, one of the inspectors confronted the woman who had organized the group drop-off and demanded that she provide her driver’s license. When she hesitated, the inspector called a policeman over and then started to take pictures of her car with her children in it. After the woman broke down in tears, the inspector continued to question her to try to find out the names and locations of other drop points.”
If blocking the people in the driveway with a police car and haranguing them was not enough, the inspectors also filed a report on the raw milk farm, meaning it could be accused of violating its permit even though all regulatory requirements have been met.
The courier was not spared either, as inspectors filed a report and claimed that he must be licensed as a retail food establishment to deliver the milk. This same rule somehow does not apply to UPS or FedEx, which deliver food to people’s homes.
The frightening event is nothing short of intimidation against peaceful individuals and small businesses, instilling fear to subdue a movement that poses a threat to the status quo.
The industrialized dairy industry is a potent force in Texas politics, and it wields that power to stifle competition and limit freedom of choice. The Texas Association of Dairymen gloats about its success in helping to kill legislation that would expand the sale of raw milk in the state.
The fact is, both raw milk and pasteurized milk can be dangerous if produced under unsanitary conditions. However, raw milk is in the same “riskier” category as “raw oysters, raw sprouts, soft cheeses (raw or pasteurized), unpasteurized juices, raw or undercooked beef or poultry, and ready-to-eat foods such as deli meats.”
These things are legally sold everywhere, and people make the choice to eat them. People have the right to make this free choice with raw milk, too.
The consumption of raw milk from sanitary facilities is not a radical idea, as several western European nations have long been free to do so. Raw milk vending machines are even being installed in France, U.K., Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
If raw milk posed any significant threat compared to pasteurized milk, it wouldn’t be expanding in these countries. People seek out raw milk for the nutritional benefits, as the pasteurization process destroys some nutrients and beneficial bacteria.
Back in the U.S., the freedom to choose what to eat is under attack. The May 26 detainment of individuals–for simply having a courier pick up legally produced raw milk for legal sale–is an escalation tactic in the name of State oppression and corporate monopoly.
“Is this the start of a broader campaign? We recently received documents indicating that, in 2013, the Ft. Worth health department reached out to other cities to discuss how to stop raw milk distribution. We’ve seen this with cottage foods before – one city health department tries a tactic to crack down on local food actions that they don’t like, and then they share the tactic with other cities who also implement it.
Whether you drink raw milk or not, this situation poses a simple question: Can the health departments ignore fundamental principles of law and individuals’ basic legal rights, and re-interpret regulations simply because they think you shouldn’t be eating or drinking something?”
Please visit the Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance to find out more about the fight for food freedom. If you live in Austin or elsewhere in Texas, there are sample calls and emails you can use to contact elected officials.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
But after a while that just wasn't good enough. So groups of people got together and designated an "agent" to buy the milk at the dairy farm, then drive hours in the hot Texas sun to deliver the raw milk right to their doorstep.
Not quite the spirit of the law. So the cops stepped in.
If I were the Texas legislature I'd say, "F**k it. We gave you your legal raw milk and you abused the opportunity. From now on, raw milk is illegal".
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-14 10:02:07 Reply Private Reply
#2: no gnu taxes To: misterwhite (#1)
As long as the buyers trust the agent to deliver the milk in a safe condition, I don't see the problem. They aren't reselling it; it's for their own use.
My wife regularly picks up my prescription medication ( sometimes even scheduled drugs). Should she be arrested for drug trafficking?
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-14 10:23:30 Reply Private Reply
#3: Gatlin To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
The good news is that "bartenders can't refuse to serve pregnant women in New York City."
Yeah ... HIP HIP HOORAY ... Yeah !!!
How are these two related ... you may ask?
Both situations involve lawful and unlawful delivery of raw milk.
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-14 10:31:42 Reply Private Reply
#4: Gatlin To: no gnu taxes, misterwhite, Deckard (#2)
The problem you don’t see and the one the author so “conveniently” ignored is that Texas law does not permit raw milk to be sold OFF THE FARM where it’s produced.
Your wife is not breaking the law when she picks up your prescription medication. So, to answer your question: “Should she be arrested for drug trafficking?" The answer is no, unless she delivers your prescription medication to someone other than you.
You may rest easy … the Canary Clan is hard at work fo you.
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-14 10:47:56 Reply Private Reply
#5: Gatlin To: no gnu taxes, misterwhite, Deckard (#4)
I have to go for now, but I anticipate your forthcoming question and I will presume to answer it in the forethought.
What are they doing wrong?
They are probably Paultards or libertarians who are trying to “ bypass” or “skirt” the law and the smartasses did not get away with it.
When they pay the courier for delivery, they are buying the milk from him (money is exchanging hands for milk), regardless how they may try to "spin" it.
If a courier is permitted to deliver raw milk for a fee (profit) then stores would be permitted to deliver raw milk to customers for a profit. Again, Texas law prohibits both of these.
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-14 11:01:42 Reply Private Reply
#6: no gnu taxes To: Gatlin (#4)
How does the law define "OFF The FARM"? Does it literally mean the buyer has to hand cash over to the producer on the premises? The buyers aren't purchasing the product from the deliverers. They are simply paying for delivery of a purchase from they made FROM THE FARM. It's a convenience, like having a pizza delivered ( be nice and tip).
Frankly, they could be purchasing sewage water for all i care as long as they aren't giving it to their kids, neighbors, etc.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-14 12:14:42 Reply Private Reply
#7: Gatlin To: no gnu taxes (#6)
TX ADC § 217.24 (permit required to sell raw milk at retail); 25 TX ADC § 217.32 (raw milk may only be sold direct to consumer at farm where produced).
A pizza is not raw milk and there is no law that says a pizza may only be sold direct to the consumer at the pizzeria.
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-14 13:21:01 Reply Private Reply
#8: no gnu taxes To: Gatlin (#7)
So if I asked my friend to go pick up some milk at a farm and gave him some gas money and the cost of the milk, he and i would would be breaking the law?
Frankly, i think this law is to eliminate redistributors (middlemen), and is not directed at deliverers.
Perhaps the deliverers are redistributors posing as middlemen ( i can't know), but I see no reason to punish the customers.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-14 13:53:09 Reply Private Reply
#9: Gatlin To: no gnu taxes (#8)
That calls for a “no” and a “yes” answer. Let me take a stab at it, and I am only stating my opinion.
If you asked your friend to go to the farm and buy a gallon of raw milk for you that costs $5 at the farm, and if the actual cost of the gasoline to drive there and back was $10 … then I can’t see how you would be breaking the law if you gave your friend $15. So, the answer is no in this case.
On the other hand, if your friend would charge $30 (which included the purchase price for the milk) for each trip and he not only did this for you but for 20 of your other friends each day. then I will say that probably would not be permitted. If your friend “could” do this (act as a courier) each day, then he probably would be very happy with his $490 profit each day. So, the answer is yes in this case.
Again, these two conditions are only my opinions.
Why, there are farms selling pasteurized milk and the law does NOT set this same condition on them. There is no law to eliminate the redistributors (middlemen) with pasteurized milk … is there.
How were the customers punished? By not receiving the milk they paid for that they tried to skirt the law to get? That can happen easily. You gave me a hypothetical, I will give one back to you.
Let’s suppose someone in Kansas wants some marijuana and marijuana is illegal in Kansas. So there is someone who offers their service as a courier for a fee who will travel across the state line into Colorado where marijuana is legal, buy the marijuana and return to Kansas to deliver it. When the courier arrives, the Kanas cops are there and confiscates the marijuana. Therein lies the same dilemma the customer for the raw milk faces … is that not correct?
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-14 15:25:25 Reply Private Reply
#10: no gnu taxes To: Gatlin (#9)
I honestly don't think this law was meant to exclude courier services, and unless I am missing something, that seems to be what this is.
As an aside, i worked for a while as an a State air quality inspector. There are laws that prohibit open burning, but with some exceptions. One of those is you can burn outdoors for cooking reasons. One guy was burning a HUGE pile of pine limbs but had some cheap ham suspended over it. Like anybody was ever going to eat that.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-14 16:03:38 Reply Private Reply
#11: misterwhite To: Gatlin (#5)
They think they're being so f**king clever.
Here the state of Texas tries to accomodate those who want raw milk, and the first thing they do is try to skirt the law. So I say shut it down. The whole thing. The consumers obviously can't be trusted.
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-15 08:56:06 Reply Private Reply
#12: misterwhite To: no gnu taxes (#10)
Really? Is that how you interpret, "raw milk may only be sold direct to consumer at farm where produced"?
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-15 08:58:16 Reply Private Reply
#13: no gnu taxes To: misterwhite (#12)
I guess the point is exactly who is being damaged this? The consumers are getting what they paid for, and are very happy to receive it.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-15 09:06:01 Reply Private Reply
#14: Deckard To: misterwhite, Gatlin, no gnu taxes (#11)
The customers know better than you about freedom.
What is it with you busybodies who think they have the right to dictate what FREE American citizens are allowed to eat, drink or smoke?
Deckard posted on 2016-06-15 09:10:31 Reply Private Reply
#15: Gatlin To: Deckard, misterwhite, Gatlin, no gnu taxes (#14)
Some people are just inherently stupid and continue to display episodic ignorance in many situations. It is therefore humanitarians call to step in from time to time when they find people currently meandering on the path of ignorance, to give them a map and directions to get back on the right road ... which the ignorant people should sincerely thank them for doing.
Gatlin posted on 2016-06-15 09:28:12 Reply Private Reply
#16: Deckard To: Gatlin (#15)
Now I've heard everything - you and the other clowns think you are doing this "for our own good"?
Once again you set yourself up as some nebulous moral authority, and frankly it's more reprehensible each time you pull this condescending bullshit
WTF don't you understand about FREEDOM? It's NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS what FREE Americans decide to eat drink or smoke.
Deckard posted on 2016-06-15 09:32:53 Reply Private Reply
#17: no gnu taxes To: Gatlin (#15)
As much as I detest the Paultard mentality, do you really want to go down this path?
Let's all give the government unlimited power, because they all know what is best for us. Is that the kind of country you really want?
It sounds like Bloomberg's and DeBlasio's NYC "utopia."
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-15 09:36:09 Reply Private Reply
#18: Deckard To: no gnu taxes (#17)
You've outed yourself as a libertarian on this thread.
Deckard posted on 2016-06-15 09:38:26 Reply Private Reply
#19: no gnu taxes To: Deckard (#18)
In general, I think if you respect authority, authority will respect you.
I'm not blind to government overreach though.
I also use the word paultard for a very good reason.
no gnu taxes posted on 2016-06-15 09:42:12 Reply Private Reply
#20: misterwhite To: no gnu taxes (#13)
Given that the subject is raw milk, I think the intent of the law is to limit distribution to local users only. If a third party is involved, the consumer has no idea how their raw milk was handled.
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-15 09:55:26 Reply Private Reply
#21: misterwhite To: Deckard (#14)
If they did, we never would have had a need for pasteurization.
misterwhite posted on 2016-06-15 09:57:50 Reply Private Reply