(The following article is not so much about personal life story of Canadian dairy farmer Michael Schmidt. It is not relevant whether Michael Schmidt has personal commercial interest in mind. The theme that is targeted is rather freedom of choice to consume and intrusion of government in this affair because of influence of corporate houses worldwide.)
Sale of unpasteurized milk is currently prohibited in Canada. For well over two decades until 2006, Michael Schmidt was distributing raw milk from his Glencolton Farms in Canada. The fact that Michael was selling milk that is not pasteurized was never denied by him. In 2006, Michael’s farm became a subject of surveillance by officials who deployed cameras to gather proof. Since then, there has been a big debate over Michael Schmidt’s right to sell raw milk.
Sale of unpasteurized milk is currently prohibited in Canada. For well over two decades until 2006, Michael Schmidt was distributing raw milk from his Glencolton Farms in Canada. The fact that Michael was selling milk that is not pasteurized was never denied by him. In 2006, Michael’s farm became a subject of surveillance by officials who deployed cameras to gather proof. Since then, there has been a big debate over Michael Schmidt’s right to sell raw milk.
Many who had become used to consuming raw milk distributed by Michael found it extraordinarily wholesome. They claim that it flavored better than branded milks. Also, it gave them great satisfaction that the milk is from well-cared animals living in a natural farm near neighboring Grey Bruce County. One web discussion titled "Canadian farmer on hunger strike to protest government raid; freedom of choice violation" cites examples of people who opted for Michael’s milk and experienced number of health benefits including relief from osteoporosis, ulcer, and allergies. Many claim unlike pasteurized milk, milk distributed by Michael did not cause constipation.
On the other hand, health experts say there is tangible menace in consuming raw milk, particularly for small children. Unpasteurized milk could include a number of harmful bacteria, including campylobacter, listeria, salmonella, brucella, and E. coli 0157:H7 that led to the death of seven people in Walkerton in 2000.
Rady Ananda in her article "How Safe Is Your Food? GMO’s, Foodborne illness and Trade Agreements" is particularly worried about how governments and corporate houses are using so-called ‘food safety’ to manipulate market access. Ananda brings into light a global report released by GRAIN claiming that whole of the exercise, instead of making food safer, imposes open markets or backchannel ways to monopolize things.
The 37-page GRAIN report observes that while the food problem globally is getting more serious with every passing day, governments and corporations are responding to the food crisis that has little to do with public health. It is stated in the GRAIN report that BSE or mad cow disease does not originate from cows that feed on normal grass: it is rather grains mixed with slaughter waste that leads to BSE. It is true that selling raw milk is permitted in 28 states in US and all other G8 countries. However, there is intense pressure by big dairy houses who sell their milks in branded form to stop distribution of raw milk. According to the report, legal rulings only support corporate houses to the disadvantage of biodiversity, traditional knowledge, and local markets.
The documentary "Michael Schmidt: Organic Hero or Bio Terrorist" narrates the plight of local Canadian farmer as he endeavors to supply 'farm fresh milk' while confronting government officers and preparing for his court case. One nature lover Paul Noble who is perturbed by the intrusion of the government over raw milk opines that if God intended us to drink pasteurized milk, he would have put a pasteurizer on the cow. Accepting that it may be harmful for human beings to consume raw milk, should it be taken as far as raw milk not allowed to be consumed by those who still choose to drink voluntarily? If consumption of raw milk has harmful effect on small children, perhaps banning it from consumption by small children would be the right thing. Making raw milk out of the reach of nature lovers who choose to consume knowing risks associated appears unacceptable.
According to Karen Selick, lawyer of Michael Schmidt, the issue is not just about selling raw milk but of wider human rights. It is harmful to consume cigarette and other alcoholic drinks. Are they not allowed to be sold with warnings? They will never be banned because of being produced by powerful corporate houses. Banning raw milk completely is easy because relatively poor dairy farmer have little say on the system. By restricting Michael Schmidt from carrying on his business, clearly it is a case of double standard.
