Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund Files Appeal in Wisconsin Raw
Milk Case
July 16, 2013
Story at-a-glance
Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger was charged with four
criminal misdemeanors for supplying a private buying club with
raw milk and other fresh produce
He was acquitted of three of the four charges and the
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is appealing the
jury verdict of the fourth charge on claims that key information
was withheld that would have exonerated him
The hold order, which Hershberger was found guilty of violating,
stated his food was “misbranded or adulterated” when in fact the
food was neither; attorneys for the case believe this missing
piece of information would have been enough for the jury to
clear him of all charges
The fight for food freedom isn’t just for those who love raw
milk – it’s for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food
of their choice from the source of their choice
By Dr. Mercola
The state of Wisconsin is one of a handful of states that is
aggressively targeting raw-milk farmers, seeking to criminalize
their methods of food production.
Wisconsin dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger was among the
latest targets, charged with four criminal misdemeanors for
supplying a private buying club with raw milk and other fresh
produce.
He was acquitted of three of the four charges, and now the
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is appealing the
jury verdict of the fourth charge…
Was This Wisconsin Raw Milk Farmer Unfairly Charged?
After Hershberger was acquitted of three of the four charges,
the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to
revoke Hershberger’s bail and instead send him to jail for a
fourth charge of violating a holding order.
This required that he not sell any food or milk from his
store as a condition of his bail. Hershberger openly admitted
that he had violated the order and broke seals to get into his
coolers, in part to retrieve food to feed his own family.
As a result, jurors had no choice but to find him guilty of
this charge, and he was sentenced to pay a $1,000 fine plus $513
in court costs. Hershberger avoided jail time and the maximum
possible fine of $10,000, but several of the jurors noted that
state prosecutors and the county judge withheld key information
that would have exonerated him of even the hold-order charge.
According to FTCLDF, the jury received a heavily redacted
hold order, which stated Hershberger’s food was “misbranded or
adulterated” when in fact the food was neither.
Attorneys for the case believe this missing piece of
information would have been enough for the jury to clear
Hershberger on all charges. According to attorney Elizabeth
Rich:
“Had the jury been given enough information to
understand the totality of the circumstances, we believe
they wouldn’t have convicted Vernon of violating the holding
order. His conviction was not consistent with the jury’s
acquittal on the other three count.”
Jurors Angered Over Blatant Injustices
Several of the jurors were so moved by the case that they now
want to join Hershberger’s buying club to be able to access raw
milk for their families, noting that this is an issue of food
freedom. Not only does it seem a precious waste of
state resources to target a man supplying wholesome food to
informed and willing buyers, several of the jurors stated they
felt the trial, and specifically the holding order charge, was
unjust.
Specifically, the jury only determined whether Hershberger
had violated the hold order… not whether the holding order was
valid. Since he had been acquitted of the charges that led to
the holding order being placed, it means that the state had no
right to be barring Hershberger from accessing his food in the
first place. Baraboo News Republic reported:1
“ '… we weren’t allowed to judge whether the holding
order was valid,' [juror Michele] Bollfrass-Hopp said. She
added that since Hershberger was acquitted of the other
charges that the state used as its basis for placing the
holding order, the order itself should have been a moot
point. ‘You have to have common sense when you apply the
law.’”
With FTCLDF’s appeal, it’s possible that Hershberger may
still be cleared on all charges and receive the justice
he deserves.
Raw Milk Continues to be Unfairly Targeted While Other Foods Are
Making People Sick
One of the most significant potential ‘threats’
from raw milk is listeria; this is the disease the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) often uses as its ‘poster child’ in
its warnings against drinking raw milk. The US Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that 2,500
Americans become seriously ill from listeria each year and,
among these, 500 will die.
While listeriosis is generally a mild illness in healthy
people, causing few or no symptoms, people with compromised
immune systems and pregnant women are at more serious risk. In
pregnant women, listeriosis can cause miscarriage, premature
delivery, infection or death to the newborn. But how many cases
of the 2,500 a year actually come from raw milk?
According to the FDA and the CDC, from 1998 to May 2005 there
were 45 outbreaks of food-borne illness that implicated
unpasteurized milk, or cheese made from unpasteurized milk.
These outbreaks accounted for 1,007 illnesses, 104
hospitalizations, and two deaths.2
This works out to 144 cases a year. And that is assuming that
EVERY person who got sick from raw milk that year got sick from
listeria, which is highly unlikely.
So it is likely far fewer than 144 people a year who have
gotten listeriosis from raw milk. The remainder of the 2,500
illnesses a year are then coming from, as the report noted,
primarily deli meats.
Hot dogs, refrigerated pre-prepared meat spreads, pasteurized
cheeses and pre-made meat and seafood salads have also been
implicated in listeria outbreaks. Just this month, for instance,
three types of Crave Brothers cheese were recently removed from
store shelves because of possible listeria contamination – and
these cheeses are made from pasteurized milk!
Is Milk Even a ‘Necessary’ Food?
The war against raw milk is clearly an issue of government
and big business trying to interfere with your right to access
pure food from the producers of your choice. Another issue
entirely is whether milk of any kind is actually the healthful
food it’s made out to be. Personally, I don’t drink much milk,
raw or otherwise (although I do currently use about one pound of
raw butter a week).
But many view milk as a dietary staple, essential for adding
calcium and fat to their diets, especially for kids. Several US
government agencies even recommend the consumption of three cups
daily of reduced-fat milk for most age groups. But a recent
article in JAMA Pediatrics3questions the scientific rationale for promoting milk
consumption for both children and adults, and reconsiders the
role of cow’s milk in human nutrition.
The authors state:
“Humans have no nutritional requirement for animal
milk, an evolutionarily recent addition to diet.
Anatomically modern humans presumably achieved adequate
nutrition for millennia before domestication of dairy
animals, and many populations throughout the world today
consume little or no milk for biological reasons (lactase
deficiency), lack of availability, or cultural preferences.
Adequate dietary calcium for bone health, often cited as the
primary rationale for high intakes of milk, can be obtained
from other sources.”
Far from being healthful, the researchers suggest that the
consumption of
reduced-fat milk, which is high in milk sugar, may instead
be contributing to the obesity epidemic (one cup of 2 percent
milk contains more than 12 grams of sugar – nearly as much as a
chocolate chip cookie). But whether or not you choose to drink
milk, most would still agree that attempting to criminalize a
raw-milk farmer for supplying this food to private buyers is a
dangerous assault on food freedom.
Small Heritage-Breed Pig Farmers Are Also Being Targeted
It’s not only raw-milk farmers who are facing the ‘food
police.’ Small farmers raising
heritage-breed hogs are also being targeted, particularly in
the state of Michigan where the Invasive Species Order (ISO)
went into effect last year.
The ISO prohibits anyone in the state from possessing what
they define as "invasive species of swine," which the state says
are carriers of many parasites and disease, and a major source
of damage to forests, agricultural lands and water resources.
While the dictionary definition of "feral" refers to an animal
running wild, Michigan authorities have taken it a step further
and extended the definition to include enclosed private hunting
preserves and small farms that are raising heritage-breed pigs.
There is no genetic test to determine whether the species on
these farms are truly invasive, so authorities are basing their
cases against these farmers solely on visual observations and
characteristics so vague that virtually any pig other than the
familiar pink domestic breed raised on CAFOs (concentrated
animal feeding operations) could potentially be deemed "feral."
Any farmer or other individual found to be in possession of
such a hog could be charged with a felony and subjected to up to
two years in jail and fines of up to $10,000 per violation. In
one case against farmer Mark Baker of Baker's Green Acres, who
raises Mangalitsa "wooly" hogs, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), through the Michigan Attorney General,
is asking the judge to impose fines of $700,000 for his 70
“illegal” pigs. Baker, however, is fighting back and has filed
suit against the state of Michigan for loss of livelihood due to
the ISO. He told FTCLDF:4
“Because of the ISO, I have not been able to process
or sell any pork in Michigan since April 2012 or sell the
live pigs. This threatens the viability of my farm, my
income and the health and well-being of my family. The ISO
is a threat to genetic diversity and freedom of choice as
well as the ability of small farms to make a living. This
order denies consumers their rights to access foods of their
choice and violates property rights and the right to make a
living. Farmers and other hog owners in Michigan must either
get rid of their now ‘prohibited’ property or become
felons.”
Are You Willing to Fight for Your Food Freedom?
The fight for food freedom isn’t just for those who love raw
milk – it’s for everyone who wants to be able to obtain the food
of their choice from the source of their choice. Now
heritage-breed pigs are being targeted and there’s no telling
what other small-farm, niche foods may be next. So please, get
involved! I urge you to embrace the following action plan to
protect your right to choose your own foods:
Join the fight for your rights: The
Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) is the only
organization of its kind. This 501(c)(4) nonprofit
organization provides a legal defense for farmers who are
being pursued by the government for distributing foods
directly to consumers. Your
donations, although not tax deductible, will be used to
support the litigation, legislative, and lobbying efforts of
the FTCLDF. For a summary of FTCLDF’s activities in 2012,
see
this link.
Support your local farmers: Buy from
local farmers, not the industry that is working with the
government to take away your freedoms.