by JIM ALGIE
A three-judge panel of the Ontario Court of Appeal reserved their decision, Wednesday, in the case of high profile, raw milk activist Michael Schmidt.
Schmidt, 59, appealed his conviction and a $9,150 fine in April of 2012 by Justice Peter Tetley on charges he illegally distributed raw milk. The conviction followed a crown appeal from an earlier acquittal by an Ontario justice of the peace on more than a dozen charges against Schmidt who has operated an organic dairy farm in Grey County near Durham for 30 years.
Since 1994, he has conducted a well-publicized campaign to open up Ontario markets for raw milk. Sale of unpasteurized milk is prohibited as a health hazard under provincial health legislation and the Milk Act. A CTV report of today’s hearing says lawyer Shannon Chace, representing the province, reiterated arguments that Schmidt’s efforts to distribute raw milk are illegal and represent a hazard to public health.
During an address at today’s court hearing, Schmidt described his efforts during the past 20 years to lobby directly every government that has come to power.
Interviewed by phone afterward, Schmidt said his lawyers – both hired by the Calgary-based, Canadian Constitution Foundation – expect it will take as much as six months for the court ruling. His appeal depends on arguments that people can avoid the prohibition on distributing raw milk by taking partial ownership of the cows who produce it.
Current law contains only a prohibition on distribution of raw milk, not on consumption. As well, lawyers Chris Schafer and Derek From argued terms of the law violate constitutional protection for economic liberty, Schmidt said.
“In the 20 years since 1994 . . . with all the testimony which was done by all the different agencies there has never been any evidence that any kind of pathogens were present in our milk or that anybody got sick,” he said.
“There have been three different governments . . . 10 ministers of agriculture and food, five premiers, three popes and three presidents of the United States and we’re still arguing about milk,” Schmidt said.
Asked if he has considered further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in the event his current arguments fail, Schmidt said he’ll await the decision.
“I’m not backing down that’s number one,” Schmidt said. “If it’s a negative decision it’s more likely I’ll plow ahead to the Supreme Court,” he said. BF
Comments
We are all indebted to Michael Schmidt for putting his livelihood on the line in favour of basic rights.
The modern "nanny state," hell-bent on protecting us from ourselves, does not tap into over 10,000 years of dairy tradition. Carefully produced raw milk is arguably a better product than industrial milk, which is separated into its constituent components, de-natured, and re-combined into an industrially-manufactured food-like substance.
We all need to eat real food. Carefully produced raw milk is a hundred times less likely to sicken anyone than raw oysters, which are legal and unregulated, and even ten times less likely to sicken anyone than bagged salad, again, legal and unregulated. How fair is that?
You are, in fact, much more likely to be killed or permanently disabled on your drive to pick up your raw milk than you are to be sickened by that raw milk. Should we not then also ban cars?
Give us some credit for weighing the risks and benefits, and for making up our own minds.
In fact, there is virtually no sound scientific evidence supporting the claim that raw milk improves people’s health. On the contrary, there’s a mountain of data showing it can be dangerous. It’s especially risky for children, pregnant women and the elderly.Thats why the Canadian Medical Association will never accept it, nor will any of the Provincial milk boards.
Mr.Schmidt knew very well the laws reguarding the sale of raw milk when he came to this Country but he chose to disobey them.
Your comments show how deeply embedded in the Matirx you have become.
"...he choose to disobey them...", wow, reminds me of the "just following orders" plea. Who gave "them" the power over me and my property (my body that is)? It wasn't me and sure as hell wasn't my ancestors, "they" just assumed it along the way and here we are.
Let people review all the evidence and decide for themselves...who is really being protected here?
I am in supply management and some of my kids get a sore stomach when drinking store bought milk but can always drink the milk out of the tank.It is a crime to prevent others from having regulated raw milk.
John Van Dyk
I drank milk out of the bulk tank all my life and now I have to buy it and there is a big difference in the taste for sure. The store bought milk is far from being the same every time you buy it and had milk that was bad way before the due date and you can run to town and return it but the price of gas and the time is not worth it. I just throw it out and do without for awhile. Wish they had at the very least someway to do a taste test on the milk before it is package and sent out to the stores.
Many think it is a "crime" for dairy farmers to force Ontario consumers to pay almost 38% more for milk than US consumers - Mr. Van Dyk seems to have a very-selective view about how preventing consumers from having a choice when it comes to supply management isn't a crime, but preventing them from drinking raw milk isn't.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
For someone who gets upset about people who take cheap shots, you sure don't miss an opportunity to take one yourself. Sad but predictable.
The true "cheap-shots" are, especially on this site, always anonymous, as is the one above, which adds absolutely nothing to the forum.
In addition, if it is a "cheap shot" to point out Mr. Van Dyk's glaring double-standard in that he seems to think that banning the sale of raw milk to those very-few who would actually want it, is a crime, but forcing over 30 million consumers to accept supply management's ability to gouge them, is not a crime, then we need more "cheap shots", and the sooner, the better.
And, all too sadly for Canadian agriculture, any time somebody points out the truth about supply management, supply management supporters are always so-unable to handle the truth, they can't do much else but respond with the knee-jerk reaction of shooting the messenger.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Many think it is a "crime" for the government to force Ontario farmers to pay 114% more for wages than some USA employers. Some states don't have minimum wage laws at all. You are very selective in preventing employers from having a choice when it comes to input costs.
But at least poor people in the US have a choice about drinking BST milk, and regardless of what type of milk they buy, the get to buy it, chicken, and eggs for a lot less than Canadian consumers - plus, they don't have our home heating costs.
Get over it already, this is the NAFTA world, and everybody in Canada, except our dairy and poultry farmers, has learned to deal with it, and in many cases, especially our wine industry, have prospered because of it.
In addition, it is somewhat pedantic to claim I am selective about input costs, when, because of NAFTA, the argument is entirely about inconsistent, and exorbitant, retail prices because of selectively-applied 200% tariff barriers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
The last word in the above posting should be "is", not "isn't" - it's a minor change, but when made, it should make it abundantly-clear that the greater crime against consumers is the forced imposition of, and the price-gouging tactics of, supply management itself, not the banning of raw milk.
It addition, one point rarely-mentioned is that because Canadian dairy farmers are legally allowed to import BST for their own use, farmers who sell raw milk, as well as those who do not, would, all else being equal, both be able to use it - however, one would suspect that raw milk producers would be far-less likely to use it than traditional milk producers.
The Van Dyk children may be experiencing the adverse consequences of the Command and Control mindset of supply management which allows supply managed dairy farmers to do dodgy things like using BST, and then claiming BST is banned in Canada. At least in the US, consumers are given the freedom of choice as to whether they buy dairy products containing BST, or whether they don`t - that, and the ban against raw milk, are just two more choices denied to Canadian dairy consumers.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
Like you John l have been in dairy all my life,l grew up drinking milk from the tank and so felt it was ok for our children to do so as well.That all changed when our 5 year old daughter was in London sick kids hospital for over 2 weeks with a severe infection,one night she had a temperature of 107. Although it was not E-coli the Doctors never did come up with a definite cause for the infection but as soon as they found out we were in Dairy and drank unpasteurized milk they recommended we stop immediately.With 2 other young children we made the switch to store bought milk and never looked back and we certainly never regretted it.
That's why l say the Medical profession will never accept unpasteurized milk,to them it will always be a killer and from the bad history of raw milk they have every reason to look at it that way.
If the truth really came out there are many farm families that don't drink from their herds......without pasteurizing it.
Schmidt knew it was against the laws of our country "to sell raw milk" and "to sell without quota" ......he is a bully and probably glad to hold his hand out for money from his urban fans
I drank milk from the tank growing up, sometimes directly from the cow. It never crossed our minds to pasteurize it. Why do you need to disparage this courageous man?
Little surprised Better Farming hasn't updated this issue.Hopefully it has run its course!
The milk you buy in the store is good one time and bad the next. So is the raw milk good all the time that you would buy at the farm or is there good and bad that makes it good and bad in the stores. I,m just wondering why I get milk that is bad in the store way before the due date, is it from the farm like that or does it happened after it leaves it.
Post new comment