by SUSAN MANN
York Region is considering its options for recovering almost $65,000 in fines and court costs raw milk activist Michael Schmidt owes for convictions related to the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk.
But so far the region has been unable to collect the $5,000 fine and $50,000 in court costs from a 2008 decision in the Superior Court of Justice in Newmarket finding him in contempt of a court order. Schmidt owes an additional $9,150 after Justice Peter Tetley convicted him in November 2011of 13 of 19 original charges laid in 2006 related to the sales and distribution of unpasteurized milk, also called raw milk. Tetley fined Schmidt the $9,150 and one year of probation. The Ontario Health Protection and Promotion Act and the Milk Act make it illegal to sell, deliver or distribute milk that hasn’t been pasteurized in a licensed plant.
Jennifer Mitchell-Emmerson, York Region manager of corporate communications, says by email the contempt fine and court costs were the result of contempt proceeding the region brought against Schmidt in 2008. Previously in May 2007 the region obtained a Superior Court of Justice order prohibiting Schmidt from selling, offering for sale or distributing unpasteurized milk in York Region. In 2008, the court ruled Schmidt was in contempt for having distributed unpasteurized milk in York Region on Jan. 8 and 15, 2008 and fined him the $5,000 plus the $50,000 in court costs. The court gave him six months to pay.
But Schmidt hasn’t paid the fine and court costs “despite our attempts to recover them, including issuing a writ of seizure and sale,” Mitchell-Emmerson says. She didn’t answer questions about when the writ was issued nor why it has been ineffective in helping the region recover the money it’s owed.
According to the Canadian law blog, Res Ipsa Loquitur, a writ of seizure and sale is a document issued by a court to an Ontario sheriff. Once it’s filed with the sheriff’s office, the writ allows the person who is owed money (the creditor) to direct a sheriff to seize and sell real estate and personal property owned by the person owing the money (the debtor) to satisfy the creditor’s judgment. As part of the amounts the creditor can collect, interest costs and money for enforcing the writ are included. But “the writ is only effective to the extent that a debtor actually has assets that can be sold to satisfy the judgment,” the law blog says.
In her email Mitchell-Emmerson says now that the Supreme Court has said it won’t review the Ontario Appeal Court’s decision regarding Schmidt’s 2011 conviction and sentence, the “region is reviewing the matter and considering its options going forward. We have no further comment at this time.”
Schmidt says he has no intention of paying any of the fines or court costs. As for the $50,000 amount he owes in British Columbia for being in contempt of court there, Schmidt says that’s in the appeal process. Schmidt was found in contempt in B.C. court in 2013 for violating an injunction to stop distributing raw milk for human consumption. But even once that appeal is concluded he says he won’t pay that amount either.
Asked what will happen to him in conjunction with the Ontario fines he owes and if he’ll likely go to jail, Schmidt says “I don’t know what option they have. Some way there needs to be a way to force them into a dialogue.”
Schmidt says he’s prepared to go to jail.
Before the Supreme Court’s Aug. 14 decision declining to hear Schmidt’s case, his 2011 conviction and fine in Ontario were also under appeal. He was initially acquitted of the initial 19 charges by Justice of the Peace Paul Kowarsky in 2010. The Ontario government and the Grey Bruce Health Unit appealed the acquittal and after that hearing Schmidt was convicted of 13 charges, fined $9,150 and placed on probation for one year. Schmidt appealed the conviction and sentence, but the Ontario Appeal Court upheld them in a ruling issued March 11.
In an earlier interview, Schmidt said he changed the business structure of his farm located near Durham in Grey County about six or seven years ago to enable people to buy shares in the farm. Previously, Schmidt had a cow-sharing arrangement where people bought shares in the cows.
As for whether government officials plan to pursue any further action against Schmidt, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care senior communications adviser Joanne Woodward Fraser says by email it’s local public health units that conduct any local enforcement under the Health Protection and Promotion Act. BF
Comments
MR. SCHMIDT ,YOU HAVE TO REALIZE AT SOME POINT YOU ARE GOE TO PAY OR GO TO JAIL ,YOU DID BREAK THE LAW ! ONTARIO HAS THE POWER TO SELL ALL YOUR ASSETS TO RECOVER THE COURT COST AND FINES LEVIED AGAINST YOUR ACTIONS ! I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOUR SUPPORTERS PAY THEM ,NOT YOU ,IF THEY TRULY SUPPORTED THE RIGHT TO DRINK RAW MILK ! THIS WOULD SHOW THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURTS THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SUPPORT AND DRINK RAW MILK WILL PAY THE COSTS TO DO SO . IF THEY ARE NOT PREPARED TO PAY ,THEY HAVE MERELY USED YOU AND YOU USED THEM TO BREAK THE LAW ! YOU SIR SHOULD THEN BE PUNISHED TO THE FULLEST THAT THE COURTS WILL ALLOW FOR WASTING HARD WORKING PEOPLES TAX MONEY !SO YOU AND YOUR RAW MILK SUPPORTERS NEED TO STEP UP TO THE PLATE WITH A GLASS OF CASH ,NOT RAW MILK !! BILL
I recall that Mr. Schmidt had gotten 100 supporters to contribute $1,000 each for his war chest. The list of names was published on his website. Where did that $100,000 go? Was this fund ever audited? Where are Revenue Canada and the bailiff?
The simple math is that with his 35 cows giving 4,000 litres each equals 140,000 litres at $2 a litre is $280,000 annually. Recent stories have said the herd and production have doubled! That would be at least $500,000!
Now there is talk of a new co-op ownership scheme. If true and you valued the 200 acres conservatively at $5,000 per acre, then there should be funds of at least $1 million available to pay fines.
Some deadbeat Dad's or fraudsters try to pull a stunt of transferring assets out of their names to avoid child supporter or skip out on creditors or court fines. It does not work.
How can food be illegal?
When it has the potential to cause sickness!
Many of these comments are crazy. Some of these people sound slow. Some are just ignorant and misinformed.
Michael is a hero because there is nothing in this for him. He could drink his own raw milk with no hassle from the government. I doubt very much that he enjoys the stress, the court appearances or the possibility of more jail time.
The person who made the comment about this not being a safety issue is right. The fact that this is a government controlled industry is the problem here. People should be able to choose raw milk in Canada just as they can in most of the world. Those who are afraid of it and afraid of people gaining the right to access it freely need to do some research.
Have you ever seen a two year old girl with diarrhea and extreme cramps in a state of dehydration writhing in pain passing only bloody mucus from E.coli 0157 H7? I have and believe me when the doctor informs you your daughter only has a slim chance of recovery while in intensive care, I would suspect most people would sell their sole wishing that they could turn back time and review their choices. The solution is oh so simple, pasteurization refrigeration!
I agree wholehearted with you,our 4 year was 2 weeks in London sick kids hospital on a steady IV drip. It was something parents never want to go through.
When the Doctors strongly recommend not drinking our own farms unpasteurized milk, there is no debate about it!
Well I can tell you I've had sever food poisoning twice both from government inspected restaurants and I've dinned hundreds of times at many Amish, Mennonite and quota holding dairy farms and drank and ate their unpasteurized meal items they provided at dinner and I was never sick once.
The same people who argue for a ban on raw milk sure wouldn't support a total ban on guns, funny how you can cheery picks ones civil liberties and rights to suit your situation or ideology
Sean McGivern
There are a number of things that can cause EColi 0157:H7. Here is a list of some:
Contaminated food, especially undercooked ground beef, unpasteurized (raw) milk and juice, soft cheeses made from raw milk, and raw fruits and vegetables (such as sprouts)
Contaminated water, including drinking untreated water and swimming in contaminated water
Animals and their environment: particularly cows, sheep, and goats. If you don’t wash your hands carefully after touching an animal or its environment, you could get an E. coli infection
Feces of infected people.
Even if a person does forgo the raw milk they could still contract EColi through no fault of their own.
It is in fact a good thing that most milk is pasteurized because the milk you are buying at the store is contaminated with pus, blood, fecal matter and bacteria.
Conventional dairy cattle are also fed growth hormones, GMO feeds, antibiotics and are heavily contaminated with chemical pesticides.
The raw milk I buy is checked regularly for bacteria and stays fresh for over a week in my fridge. I go to the farm where it is produced and know how they do things. I totally trust that it is healthy and safe for me and my family.
I don't mind if you like your milk from the store.
Here's an idea, the next time you or a member of your family is sick and needs medical care maybe you should just visit Mr.Schmidt and gets his medical advise since you trust his word over the real Medical profession.
Through all your inaccuracies the clincher would be "me and my family".I could give a rats behind if a grown adult wants to put something like raw milk in their body but to take it home and feed it to their family/children,that person should be in court as much as Mr. Schmidt.
Well until you can get the law changed that's not going to happen. lol
Do you eat pizza and fast food? cakes and donuts? factory farmed beef, pork and chicken (the true source of most food born illnesses, such as E-coli)? processed cooking oils? Chemically laden processed foods that come from cans and boxes and bags (kraft dinner, potato chips, crackers or cookies)? do you smoke or drink alcohol? If you answered yes to any of those questions, then you are on the road to cancer, heart disease, or diabetes, and you're probably feeding your child that same diet...shame on you!! maybe next time you or your family is sick with a chronic condition you should take advice from Monsanto (Chemical Giant that only cares about profits and controlling the food supply with various lawsuits against them WORLDWIDe!). Literally BILLIONS of people drink raw milk and live long healthy lives. The standard American diet kills thousands each year in the form of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, autoimmune disorders, among other chronic conditions. Oh, and what about the rampant lactose intolerance so many people suffer from? Lactose intolerance is due to pasteurization of milk which kills the enzymes needed to digest milk. People who are lactose intolerant have no problems digesting raw milk, just ask my sister. I'll take that glass of raw milk from that healthy cow, thank you :)
You presume the milk is from a healthy cow,just as you presume the milker didn't fall off her that morning and suck up something unpleasant.I have yet to see the dairy barn that was that sterile to guarantee no contaminants on every single milking.
Killing people,mostly children was the whole reason why mandatory milk pasteurization was brought in.People can argue on how much more modern our dairy farms are and our milking equipment but the fact is cows and manure go together,as much as farmers may try it's almost impossible to separate the 2.
The other fact is that pasteurization has been so successful in eliminating raw milk illnesses that why would we ever thing of going back to the old raw milk days ? It's akin to rescinding the mandatory seat belt law.
This whole argument is just ridiculous. And I can't figure why it gets such play. anyone can buy or have access to raw eggs and all sorts of meat. The health authorities hav a position on cooking such foods and its totally available in raw form. Milk is no differentt. The problem here is that the issue is being confused by those that advocate the raw consumption of milk, which entirely different then have access to raw milk. Many people that access raw milk just want a specific quality of milk, and YES then go and pasteurize it before consumption.
Where is the science-based research promoting unpasteurized milk ? Because the health authorities have a mountain of evidence against it.
I am starting to believe this is not about the suspect health benefits of raw milk at all,its all about snubbing noses at one's Government and that truly is the sad part because it has always been about food safety in the eyes of the medical authorities dispite what Mr. Schmidt may say.
No they don't. (have a mountain of evidence)
Speak for yourself about what this is about. Some of us are not as sure as you are that medical authorities are knowledgeable about this topic and the government has nothing to do with why I have raw milk in my refrigerator.
Canada has a quota for diary milk in order to better control the price. If you wanted to become a dairy farmer (legal, only selling pasteurized milk), another farmer would have to sell his cows because there are only to be so many cows in production at one time. Which means it's extremely hard to get into, because as one small family farm goes out of business, another larger farm buys up the extra quota, until there are only giant factory farms producing milk. Notice how much advertising they did after they banned raw milk. They closed the marked and started millions of dollars worth of advertising, which means they were making an absolute killing off sales. They couldn't have done that if the typical farmer were allowed to sell milk to all his friends and neighbors. And by the way, most of the illnesses the occurred due to raw milk was due to a few large farms that had extremely unhealthy conditions the cows were kept in. The typical small farm keeps happy, healthy cows and makes sure everything is clean and sterilized when milk is involved. Raw milk wasn't the problem, it was the producers.
You would have us believing those small dairy farms have their cows wearing diapers!
Why can we still get cold meat, cigarettes, foods with GMO's in them, hamburger, cantaloupe, lettuce, pop, aspartame, peanuts, pain killers, booze, white bread, sugar, eggs, pasteurized milk, shellfish and so on then? They all have the potential to cause sickness.
Obviously there is some work to do to make us all safe.
... Michael renounced all things material - the crown can't take from him what he doesn't have . It is his moral duty to resist an evil system by disobeying its orders and decrees !
They can put him in jail, but then he will not eat and will subsequently die at the hand of evil !
Michael is a hero, and is in the company of all those who came before him who have struggled at great cost to themselves - to eventually make the world a better place for all :)
That old scheme does not fool the courts or creditors. As someone has already said, many fraudsters have tried to pull a stunt of transferring assets out of their names to skip out on creditors or court fines. It does not work.
If assets are not deemed to have been sold at fair market value, those assets can be followed and seized. If they are sold at fair market value, they will follow that cash and seize it. Another easy solution, given the easily measured gross income from the milk sales, is to simply garnish from that income stream the funds owing for all the fines and court costs.
Amidst the folderol and flapdoodle about paying and/or not paying fines for this, that, and/or whatever, the suggestion that Mr. Schmidt is a fraudster because he appears to have transferred ownership of his farming assets to his customers simply begs the question - "who are the real fraudsters"?
The answer can, as always, be found by following the money to the legislated ability of dairy farmers to implement "fraudster" pricing via supply management. If, therefore, Schmidt is simply "fighting fire with fire" when it comes to balancing one set of fraudsterism with another, the vitriol of the dairy establishment is being sorely mis-directed outwards instead of inwards.
In addition, the farm community just doesn't seem to get the point that when someone is fully prepared to go to jail rather than admit guilt and/or pay fines, that person is going to get a lot of sympathy at the considerable expense of those who would chastise him/her for his/her beliefs and actions.
For example, and although it is a completely-different issue, the trials and tribulations of Dr. Henry Morgentaler served as a lightning rod for the beliefs and principles he, and his supporters, espoused, and which eventually did prevail.
The raw milk issue is simply not going to go away anytime soon, if ever - it would be wise, therefore, for the farm community to come to terms with this reality and act accordingly.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The jails are full of convicted common criminals that never admit their guilty, one more won't make any difference.
People supported womens' right to choose, they don't support the right to expose other people's children and the general public to transmissible diseases that the federal and provincial legislatures have both decided carry too high a risk to public health.
The exemptions given only to on-farm consumption have proven acceptable risks, extending it to milk distributed in non-aseptic packaging from non-licenced processing equipment for consumption over a period of several days is not an acceptable risk.
The longer this goes on, the more chance that Schmidt will become infamous in the same way as Walkerton.
Maybe Schmidt should donate raw milk to his local public school . That would raise some eyebrows !!
It's rather-disconcerting to see farmers so-quickly, and so-completely, adopt a "law-and-order" mentality when it comes to this issue, yet howl to the moon about the need for agriculture to be exempted from this rule, that law, and so on, and so-forth.
When agriculture stops arguing for exemptions for effectively everything under the sun, we might possibly be taken seriously when we seek to deny the freedom of choice to others.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
There is NOTHING WRONG with consuming raw milk - not here in Canada and not anywhere else on this planet. People who are in authoritarian positions dream up this nonsense - being rules and regulations against raw milk which are absolutely incorrect, and then try to enforce them onto innocent people who continue to fight for their right to consume healthful food so that they can remain healthful and maintain their health.
Innocent and hard-working citizens like Michael Schmidt need to be supported and uplifted for doing such tremendous work for humanity.
Ignorant people, as the person who wrote the first comment, go along like sheep and support the government.
Michael Schmidt is a very educated and intellectual person who knows how to raise cows, and produce top quality raw milk which is highly beneficial to your health.
Let's all get behind him and give him the support he deserves!
I cannot believe this is an issue at all, raw milk? This is not about public safety, this is about protecting a government controlled industry. If they where concerned about our health they would ban alcohol, cigarettes, deoderant, pestacides on our food, etc. Why don't they ban these? It would be bad for business.
exactly ...well put
..."wasting hard-working people's tax money" ? ! oh, that's rich. Not many people these days work as hard as dairy farmers. who's done more good for the sake of taxe$ spent on him ? : Dalton McGuinty, or Michael Schmidt as he fed people for a quarter of a century, with on-one getting sick? Ontari-ario is about a billion dollars poorer directly attributable to Mr McGuinty's rank perversion of government, yet I don't hear you-all bleating for him and his cronies, to pay THAT back
Dalton McGuinty, or Michael Schmidt... Ontari-ario is about a billion dollars poorer directly attributable to Mr McGuinty's and the former ag minister now premier Wynn's rank perversion of (liberal) law abiding government, yet no one is berating them or their dishonest bureaucrats cronies, to pay public monies back
Much of our English common law is set by court precedents. One has to wonder what future defense pleas might be based on the lack of enforcement of past politically partisan fraud. I guess then it should come down to the decision of which is the bigger sin, or upholding the law based on the definition of a sin is a sin.
Courts being the offspring of government must uphold the law and the integrity of the law or risk becoming the bastard child of governments version of democracy
Way at the back of the farm l could grow 4 or 5 acres of an illegal crop that has not near the dangerous potential as raw milk,my crop would have far greater public support and medicinal values than any suspect qualities of said raw milk,it might even have the support of some well known politicians to legalize.However if l was caught growing it l wouldn't have to worry about some fine to pay,it would be some serious jail time.
How Mr. Schmidt gets away selling such a illegal, dangerous product is beyond the scope of a lot of people,it's unfortunate that the only way he is finally shut down is if there is an infectious outbreak from his milk, which probably will mean some children become ill and hospitalized.Then and only then will people come to understand why it was banned from selling in the first place!
For farmers and consumers who want to produce and consume local food, then I would encourage you to come out and hear Joel Salatin of Poly Fce Farms at UofG Oct 4th, He runs a diverse farm and its operated by 3 generations of the Salatin Family. Check out the Practical Farmers of Ontario web site to register for this awesome event... The more farmers can think outside the box the better chance we have to earn a good living just like Michael Schmidt is able to do on his farm.
Sean McGivern
PFO
Anyone can produce and consume local (the word "local" is redundant if you produce the food) food if they own/rent farmland. That is a matter of the province. Its another matter when consuming the food off the farm. When the food leaves the farmland and enters onto Crown land, the road, it becomes a matter of marketing. People should learn more about the box first if they want to think outside it.
I would never drink Raw Milk from someone Farm Period. The same goes for eating meat that has not been inspected.
The milk and meat could have things in it that can make you very ill or worst and there is People out there that would not tell you if it has Drugs in it or is sick or have been lately.
Trust Me I have land for sell for sell in the Ocean which is prime if the ocean was to dry up.
You are getting your milk and meat from farms. As far as milk goes, while most dairy farmers are very conscientious, the milk that is produced when it is going to be pasteurized can have more bacteria in it than the milk will have from a farmer producing quality raw milk.
The thing is you will never have any trouble going to the store and buying your milk and meat there so enjoy.
So basically what your saying is the Dairy family that drinks their own milk doesn't care as much as the raw milk farmer that sells it.
As a small dairy farmer for over 30 years, that is completely false !
I'm not insulting your milk. My husband grew up on a dairy farm and we always drank the milk from the tank too. We also bought milk from a dairy farmer who would sell it to us even though I guess it wasn't legal to do it and we loved it.
I am just saying raw milk is a healthier choice than pasteurized, homogenized milk and the fact that it is not pasteurized means it absolutely has to be very clean.
That's the thing....You're a SMALL dairy farmer, Large dairy farmers are more concerned with quantity, not quality...thus the reason they became a big farmer
And yet US numbers show clearly that as farm size increases, average SCC and bacteria counts decline significantly
ALL THE COMMENTS HAVE THERE MERITS ,BUT THIS IS ABOUT SOMEONE BREAKING THE LAW ,RATHER YOU AGREE OR NOT ! LAWS ARE MENT TO PROTECT PEOPLE THAT OBEY THE RULES OF THIS LAND. IN MR. SCHIMDT CASE ,HE HAS CHALLENGED THE LAW AND RULES AND LOST ,NOW IT IS TIME TO PAY ,THAT IS HOW THIS COUNTRY OPERATES ! THIS MAN WHO I THOUGHT I KNEW , WAS A MAN OF PRINCIPLE , WRONG ,HE IS ONLY INTERESTED IN BEING IN FRONT OF A CAMERA OR IN THE MEDIA . HE HAS LOST HIS PUBLIC AND MORAL VALUES WHEN YOU FIGHT FOR WHAT YOU BELEIVE IN AND LOSE ,YOU HAVE TO PAY THE PRICE !! SOME OF US KNOW WHEN TO QUIT AND EXCEPT THAT WE HAVE LOST THIS BATTLE ,INSTEAD OF BEING SO STUBBURN THAT WE LOSE ALL SENSE OF WHY WE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LAW ! MICHEAL PAY THE FINES BEFORE YOU LOSE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING ,YOU CAN NOT ,NOR SHOULD YOU WIN THIS FIGHT ! DON'T YOU SEE THERE ARE NOT 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT WANT RAW MILK IN ONTARIO OR CANADA !! IT IS OVER !! REGARDS ,BILL
If he pays the fine, he will never get that money back. The supreme court refused to hear his case. How is that justice? Not all laws are ment to protect people - many are there to pad the pockets of the privileged. Mr. Schimdt should fight with ever fiber in his body. How dare you act like we should all just keel over and accept injustice? I am confused as to why the battle isn't being fought more strategically though. Why not get them to admit it's not the raw milk but the quota by offering to sell pasteurized milk through cow share?
1. The Supreme Court turned down his request for an appeal because there were no grounds whatsoever for an appeal!! That is how justice works.
2. To pasteurize milk he would simply need to get a processing plant licence from OMAFRA for his farm. Several Ontario dairy farmers have done this and sell their own fluid milk. His farm would have to be licenced and inspected of course. But I doubt anyone would keep paying him $3 a litre for his milk.
Pay your fines. With the ample tax-free returns coming from your followers plus the $100,000 in crowd-funding you did for your legal fund, you can afford it!
Anyone else would have to pay the fine .
Why do you think you are so special
G. Kimble
People were getting sick on unpasteurized milk long before Quota came along!
Yep...that was before refrigeration was common in most/all homes...do you think there's a connection there?
Pathogens in raw milk are fairly infrequent (present about 4% of the time) but some pathogens like listeria are cold-loving - grow faster in cold conditions - and some, like e-coli 0157 (Walkerton) cause illness at very low load levels. So fridges don't solve the problem. Talk to a nine-year-old needing kidney transplants because of raw milk and you will know why milk must be pasteurized. Plus the scientific reality is there is no nutritional advantage to raw milk.
Unless you are selling a bogus story to followers for $3 a litre.
The only real connection that is important is when milk Pasteurization became mandatory in this province in 1938 the cases of milk borne illnesses declined dramatically.
No one wants to go back to pre-refrigeration days the same as we don't want to go back to selling unpasteurized milk.
I think refrigeration had a lot more to do with any decrease in food borne illness than pasteurization...and I drink unpasteurized milk...but I keep it in the fridge not the root cellar.
The fridge will not kill salmonella,listeria or E. coli ,pasteurization will.
It's not about breaking or obeying laws, it's about standing up for human rights. A law is created taking away human rights, don't you think you ought to stand up for yourself?? Micheal is strong in not paying the fines, paying the fines means he admits defeat, not paying the fines means he is setting an example to the rest of us to stand up for ourselves, the more people that stand up, the harder it is to enforce something. Some people have to fall in order to make things better for the rest
The pasteurization law was about saving lives.you just have to look at the number of children deaths before and after pasteurization to realize why the law must be obeyed.
Children are not very good on understand human rights but in the case of drinking unpasteurized milk they usually are the victims.
I send in a comment yesterday which did not get published. Reading the guidelines below I am wondering who decides what should be published. Reading some of these comments they would fall under cheap shots( Bill)
It does not bother me except if my comments are not published. Is there a certain biased????
A question to Bill. Does people have no rights when they are a minority?
If you are interested come to the farm and I can give you some background information which might help you better understand what is at stake.
Michael Schmidt
Editor: We are unaware of any comment from Mr. Schmidt that was not published.
Micheal ,you know me very well ,we have been at rallies together ,at court and we share the same believe freedom of choice ! The difference between us is I fought the battle ,paid all my own legal fee's ,won some ,lost some BUT I ALWAYS PAID THOSE FINES ! To day I see a man who at all costs does not respect the LAW OF THE LAND ,to fight for a cause and lose ,you have to know when to quit ! The time is now ,no one can say that you fought the hardest to win !The truth is you have lost and never will win this right in CANADA ,THIS IS NOT U.S.A OR HOME OVER SEA'S ! THIS IS CANADA AND YOU DO NOT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF ALL THE PEOPLE ON THIS ISSUE TO SELL RAW MILK ! FACE IT ,I COMMENT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO EDUCATE ME ON RAW MILK ,I DRANK IT EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE ,TILL I SOLD THE COWS AND FARMS AND MOVED ON IN LIFE ! YOU SHOULD KNOW WHO I AM AND WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE SUCH REDICULUS COMMENTS ABOUT EDUCATING ME ABOUT RAW MILK ! THIS PROVES YOU HAVE LOST SIGHT OF THE REASON YOU LOST IN COURT !YOU ARE NOT GOD ,PAY YOUR FINES AND STOP WASTEING TAX PAYERS MONEY AND THE COURTS TIME ! MOVE ON ! BILL DENBY /THE BIGGEST RAW MILK EXPORTER TO THE U.S.A. ,TILL WE HAD TO STOP !!
Bill, had you of continued on like Michael has, you might very well still be in Business today, but you chose to throw in the towel and get out of farming.
I think it's unfair and low of you to be as critical of Michael as you have chosen to be in such a public venue, your better then that.
When you were doing what he was doing you were very boastful and sure of your self at the time, now from the side lines you have greatly changed your tune.
Michael has always stayed true to his convictions on the raw milk issues regardless if people chose to agree with him, he has always been true and stalwart in his fight and gone above and beyond in proving with science, policy, education and forming an inspection and training program for raw milk production.
Bill you chose to be a lone wolf, Michael chose to form an organization he is still in business and your not, judge not least ye be judged.
Sean McGivern
The milk coming from the farm that Michael works on has not caused one sickness in 20 years. I wish to God that every Dairy Farm in North America could have that history. Many of you have an attitude of old days 'TAR & FEATHER' him for breaking an unjust law. I wonder if there is one farmer in Canada that can honestly say that in their life time that they have never allowed a quest to drink their unpasteurized milk (even in their tea or coffee) that was on the farm table. He that hath no sin let that Farmer cast the first stone. I broke man's law by providing the same milk. If Michael goes to jail, then all of us farmers must or the Law of the Land will be unjust.
There are ways to collect the monies owed . Things are happening behind the scenes . Some times it is nice to have connections within the legal system .
I would not in any way want to be involved in this . It could well cost alot of people alot of money they don't have and never thought they were responsible for . Big brother IS watching !
Why is it that in all the articles, the press never dwells on why it is raw milk is legal practically everywhere but Ontario, and no laws get made to change that?
Where else is it legal to sell in Canada ?
The problem with making a public spectacle is that its addictive and it easy to loose sight of the actual cause.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT with no sense of how a workable solution is possible or will look like. The issue needs to deperatly change course, and in fact already has.
The science is in, and it supports supports raw milk production and availability. The time is now to set the stage for a workable solution with those that are charged to hold a public perspective, which includes a wide range of stake holders. In the absence of particiapation, decision will be made in the absence of all parties at the table.
Those who wish to perpetuate revolutionary talk, and include in such contemptuous behavior a varied course of anti-government actions, in opinion are not actually fighting to secure raw milk access, but are about some other things that may have emerged through the consequence of the ordeal rather then in any way open to dialogue and discourse or benevolent outcomes.
When the doors of government were proclaimed opened and the office of the ruling party was open, there was nothing to say. I have since seen no proposal or positon where any respect or honor is granted to those that act on behalf of the public.
How disappointing it has been to watch this tragedy unfold. Where once we thought a hero, a champion of the human spirit has stepped up, we have all witnessed the fall.
Beware of the drowning man
This is so true. I can't believe how many over-look this.
In our society you can try to change a law without breaking it. When you break the law you need to be prepared to face the consequences. You know, man up! Some call it taking responsibility. Now responsible is not a term I would normally associate with those who feed raw milk to children or to those who are otherwise unable to understand the importance of pasteurization.
I read an article that says that from 2009 to 2011 there have been 2,729 illnesses and 39 deaths from eggs, peanuts and cantaloupe in the United States.
In contrast there have only been a handful of deaths from pasteurized milk in the last decade and none at all from raw milk since the 1980's. And apparently they have 10 million people drinking raw milk regularly in the U.S.
While looking for Canadian statistics all I could find concerning milk were that in 1985 more than 165,000 people were sickened by pasteurized milk and in 2007 listeria from pasteurized milk was linked to 3 deaths.
Raw milk is superior to pasteurized milk and has a better track record.
I am one of those (possibly not so rare) cases in which my body rejects pasteurized milk. Growing up on a dairy farm, I never had a problem drinking the milk. But as soon as we sold the cows and ended up buying milk from the store, I would break out in rashes all over my body. It took a little while to figure out the milk was the issue.
I can now only eat my cereal with milk a maximum of twice a week or the rashes come back and my I end up with bowl problems.
This makes me wonder how many people/kids get diagnosed with "Lactose Intolerance" while the real issue is that the end product is rejected by their bodies, and it is not the natural product causing the issue. To this day, I have no issues with raw milk, but am unable to obtain it legally.
It is my belief that the issue isn't properly looked at scientifically in regards to health conditions, and that at least those who are intolerant to pasteurized milk, should be able to obtain alternatives including raw milk (powdered milk doesn't do it).
Buying raw milk should be a choice at own risk, the buyer should be liable for their own choices.And it should be legal, we have the ultimate responsibility to care for ourselves. If I make a choice that may affect my own body positively or negatively, someone else should not be held responsible. Momentarily, the governments choice of banning the sale of raw milk, is negatively affecting my personal health while promoting the issue at hand to be positive due to health concerns. Unfortunately this isn't true for me.
There is Lactose-free milk in the stores.
Unfortunately our over-loaded health care system will ultimately be responsible for you and your family if you get sick on raw milk.
Our "over-loaded" health care system will be there for you as well when you eat raw spinach infected with E. coli. But you can't possibly see the similarity between the two since you lack basic logic. Raw milk should be labeled clearly as "process for pasterization" so that we have the choice to consume it how we choose. Do you run around telling people beef and salmon should only be sold cooked and act like you're the only one paying into health care when people eat it raw? What about people who want to make cooking ingredients with raw milk? Oh wait logic isn't your strongest skill.
How and why did your children get sick? you never mention specifically what made them sick.
I have witnessed children at a bus stop LEGALLY toting "energy drinks" by the CASE, bragging about it....these drinks with long chemical ingredient lists are LABELED "HEALTH PRODUCT". But lets go after the milk, folks!
To be a drinker of raw milk is to register the cardboard sensation of dead food in a pasteurized product. How many potatoes do we eat that would never sprout? How many times can we buy fish laden with heavy metals, stolen from lands short on food, and processed in China. How many meats can we consume laced with antibiotics to "balance" the sick conditions of the animals. How many factory farms can we drive past with their bland facades, and plastic "farmers " house standing in the foreground, and pretend there is not living hell going on right in our communities, and accept this as normal without inner rage. How many products can we buy with mountains of toxic packaging, and get some righteous indignation that we care about health? How much dead food and toxins and ethical ignorance can we withstand in the name of "safety"?
GMO's in corn, plastic linings in tomato sauce cans....There is hardly a food in the store I can contemplate without a dreadful sense of health drawbacks from what could be considered a "whole food"
How many bacteria outbreaks and recalls have come and gone in our cold cut meat industries, even in hummous production?....
Take your righteous indignation, and move to another planet. Meanwhile I WILL swim against this current of mad 'normality', and trust that life is bigger than this myopic generation.
How MANY tax dollars were squandered in ludicrous raids against the farm?
"How many factory farms can we drive past"..why drive,why not walk or ride your horse by.A small portion of society has this "all natural" agenda,as long as its not too all natural.I suggest you don't cook over an open fire,you don't wear wool or animal skins,you probably don't even send a letter by stagecoach anymore,the list goes on and on.You want your food all natural but you want to be able to take advantage of every other perk this modern era has to offer.
In your world, farmers are to work the way are forefathers used to,without the use of new technology and at the same time try and make a living doing it but that is just not going to happen.
Farmers take great care in producing what the processors and retails want to put on their shelves.Grocery stores know that the present day consumer demands perfection,no one wants to see a store apple with scab on it,if bread didn't have preservatives people would be bringing loaves back in 2 days wondering why it got moldy so fast,why do people squeeze lettuce,the same goes for a majority of produce,its all about giving consumers what they want.
I suggest to you even Mr.Schmidt does not run a totaly "all natural" operation,if he did he would be milking cows by hand.
There is a reason why organic makes up only 2% of societies diet,people like yourself love to talk about having a total wholesome food supply by they are unwilling to pay the price for it.
I'd like the freedom to choose. I understand the masses need some kind of guidance and help but don't make it so restricted that everybody else should pay too. I am wise enough to make my choices. Do you know that Russia gives you this right?
I drive past the farms too and there are definite perks to living in this time of history. I don't cook over an open fire either and see little advantage for anyone if I did.
There were legitimate points raised in that post. Actually they were all legitimate.
We all need to change what we think is normal or our health is going to deteriorate. And we do need to change our ideas about the perfect apple etc. like you are saying and be willing to pay more for a healthier product. I know raw milk is worth the extra money to me. And I do appreciate the farmers.
We need to quit being so afraid. People are afraid of raw milk and dairy is very far down the list as far as a food that ever makes anyone sick and yet it gets targeted.
We need to quit being afraid of disease to the extent that we are inoculating our children with all kinds of crap because they are in grave danger if we don't. In actual fact they are getting all kinds of weird things such as autism and juvenile arthritis , cancer etc. because we are too trusting that these things are safe. The vaccinations are not safe and neither are the extra preservatives etc. that are in them.
It is great that people are caring about these things.
Antibiotics cause weight gain. That's why they are fed to cattle.
But they also are not spoken of as the cause of resistant infections, because that would be too close to the truth. Diseases created by this type of management may have already outweighed the "benefits". Confinement stresss makes the animals ill/lowers weight gain. Feeding them antibiotics makes them less ill/increases weight. But the dieases they have already created are out there.
Schmidt is highlighting freedom of choice - most people don't need or want the government telling us what we can and cannot eat... The standards of safety held by government reflects distortions of interpretations and understanding of science - one far too tied to industry benefits at the cost of the greater good.
I appreciate that by not paying the fines this issues stays in the news, as it must in order for things to eventually change.
I'd like to think that most reasonable people would be against spending government funds prosecuting and defending such cases - we have so many more pressing issues to rectify. Raw milk is legal in so may jurisdictions and let's remember that we have many outdated laws on the books that are no longer enforced.
Let's get our priorities straight and tackle environmental health and skyrocketing rates of dementia and Lyme disease, and the aging and decline of farmers - these issues will have a huge impact if we don't get our priorities straight soon...
Today, Michael came walking far along a country road, with his small herd of beautiful, impeccably shiny cows sauntering along. Children scootered between them. The fields were gorgeously green....We paused to let them pass. My small son looked out at the cows and declared, "Ladies first!"
One must understand the value of milk quota in Canada to truly understand the issue here. Take a few minutes and see what a daily kilogram of butter fat quota cost at different provincial marketing boards and you will see for yourself, the value of milk quotas on Canadian dairy farms. (50 good producing Holstein cows each cow producing 10000 litres of annual milk production with a butterfat content 3.8% will produce 380 kg of butterfat annually per cow. 380 kg/365 days=1.04 KG of daily butterfat quota per cow times 50 cows = 52 KG of BF quota daily. The would cost $1300000 in Atlantic Canada, and more in the west.)
Raw milk farmers do not have any milk quota and if they get the legal right to sell milk through cow shares etc. these quota holding dairy farmers are going to be the losers. I understand the health risks with raw milk, however there are several species of raw milk being sold in this country, goats, buffalo, etc. Why are these producers not being bothered. As for e coli vegetables and ground meat are could also be contaminated, are these farmers being raided?? You health inspectors are being pressured by the cattle milk marketing boards
If Michel Schmidt were to pasteurize this cow share milk before distributing it to the cow share owners what legal issues would be brought forward next. How many of these quota holding farm families drink raw milk from their bulk tanks??
I know many young farmers keep beef cattle and working off the farm that would jump at the opportunity to begin milking cows and take up farming full time. These young farmers have the farm, access to lots of rented farm land, equipment, barns etc (the country side is full of empty decent dairy barns). They cant afford to buy the quota, or are worried to finance the quota and have it turn worthless. There are two legal issues here 1. Milk Quota, and 2. Health Risks. The public only here of the Health Risks side of the story. The milk quota value side of the story is not going to get support from the public or the health officials.
Post new comment