z czterech stron swiata

palmela

Farmer asks for charges to be dismissed
TIMOTHY APPLEBY

Globe and Mail Update

June 4, 2008 at 7:50 PM EDT

NEWMARKET, Ont. — What does the word “include” mean? And how should “a person” be defined?

Behind closed doors, a pretrial hearing for a farmer charged with selling unpasteurized milk was asked Wednesday to ponder those weighty questions and to think well outside the carton.

At issue are charges brought against German-born organic farmer Michael Schmidt, 54, who for more than 20 years has been producing and selling raw milk from his Glencolton Farms, in Grey-Bruce County near Owen Sound.

That's illegal under Ontario's Health Protection and Promotion Act, as it is everywhere in Canada, and in 2006 Ministry of Natural Resources officials raided and searched Mr. Schmidt's farm and seized his processing equipment.

Raw milk is legal in much of Western Europe and in many U.S. states, and its proponents boast of a wealth of benefits, including reversing osteoporosis.
But here, regulations require milk to be pasteurized, or heat-treated, to ensure the elimination of pathogens, which health experts say are particularly hazardous to children.

Mr. Schmidt, however, who goes to trial later this year and says he will be bankrupted by huge fines if convicted, believes the health act does not apply to him. Separately, he also faces a contempt-of-court charge for ignoring an order to cease his raw-milk operation.

Acting without a lawyer, he arrived late for Wednesday's hearing and strode into the courtroom wearing a cap and frock coat and laden with documents. Justice of the Peace Grainne Forrest ordered the court cleared of the handful of spectators so the proceedings could take place in camera.

Mr. Schmidt's motion to have the 20 charges tossed out, however, lays out his case.

Section 18 of the health act states: “No person shall sell, offer for sale, deliver or distribute milk or cream that has not been pasteurized or sterilized in a plant that is licensed under the Milk Act.…”
But what exactly is a person? The act explains that “person includes a board of health, a municipality and any other corporation.”

Ah, but what does “include” mean?

The Oxford dictionary defines “include” as “comprise, reckon in, as part of the whole.” But it also offers a second meaning, namely to “enclose,” and Black's Law Dictionary says the same.

Looked at like that, Mr. Schmidt's Latin-sprinkled motion contends, the act only applies to corporations and the other entities named because it “encloses” them and shuts out everything else. People included.

“It is respectfully submitted that the word Person … does not extend to individuals, physical persons or mere natural persons,” his accompanying statement says.

No trial dates have been set on any of the charges. After examining his motion Wednesday, Ms. Forrest deferred the matter to July 4.

Afterward, Mr. Schmidt seemed pleased.

“More and more it is clear there are protocol issues, like a faulty search warrant,” he said. Moreover he added, at the next hearing “the motion may be expanded.”

Comments (22)
Orest, your quote:Far too many ideologically driven... Cow's milk is for calves!
Truckerlectual - Your link is to a story about recalls...
I agree with Angry and bj sutherland. The problem is...
Follow this writer
Add TIMOTHY APPLEBY to my e-mail alerts
Top National Stories
‘He believed in what he was doing,' dead soldier's widow says
===================
Donald Wilson from Canada writes: I and my two sisters grew up on a farm where we drank unpasturized milk for more than 20 years . We were never sickened by that milk . All our neighbours were the same . Most farmers kept milking machines and equipment clean , And , most important of all , cooled the milk quickly after each milking , and kept it cool until time to deliver it to the local dairy . Many people from the nearby city came to our farm to buy "fresh " milk as they thought it tasted better than pasturized milk .
It seems laws were passed that are designed to favor the corporations over the individual .
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:11 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
George BrownIII from Christmas Island writes: If people are free to drink, smoke, shoot up and eat ad libitum why not drink unpasteurized milk? It is obvious Mr Schmid outsmarted the justice of peace, who is just an appointed political hack who could not face the public embarrassment and decided to empty the court room.
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:16 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
The Middle Finger ..I.. from Canada writes: As there appears to be an international market for his product, there is obviously no scientific conscensus after 20 years. I for one have tasted farm milk directy from the cow. I'm still here after nearly 60 years. Make the DoH prove their science.
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:23 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
bob london from Canada writes: Give me my milk. Not Loblaws stuff with no nutritional value but good old fashioned milk. Greg Sorbera drinks it and his intelegence level is smarter than the Liberal Leadership. He stepped down.
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:33 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
bob london from Canada writes: MNR are the geniuses who stopped the annual bear hunt where the animal is consumed and then shot 4000 bears and left them where they were to rot. Toronto brats with power. A scary thing.
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:43 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Vern McPherson from writes:
How stupid is this argument /////////////////

Turn back the clock before Madame Curie ...............

Landowners association sucks dumb Holstein cow's teats ..............

don adams throws rocks at airplanes ....................
Posted 04/06/08 at 9:58 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
John Dixon from Vancouver, Canada writes: Yeah, yeah, everyone's an expert cause they drank unpasteurized milk once and they're still alive. It's illegal to sell raw milk because it is a Public Health Hazard. Unlike smoking or heroin use, the principal consumers of milk are vulnerable young children. It's not unproven science, on the contrary it's universally accepted worldwide that pasteurization reduces the incidence of food-borne pathogens in dairy products (and other stuff) to almost nil. These pathogens include polio, salmonella, e-coli 157h:7, campylobacter, and listeria.
On the other hand, the dairy industry does a very good job of convincing everyone, including Health Canada that diary is necessary in a healthy diet. Not true. It's not even a particularly good source of calcium. Milk consumption has been linked to various health problems, perhaps the most serious is juvenile-onset diabetes.
Posted 04/06/08 at 10:02 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: John Dixon: it's not a public health hazard in countries that actually HAVE safe food though. Like France. Why would it be a public health hazard in Canada? Answer: it's not. But why would they lie? Profit. Pure and simple.

Unfortunately, Canada is the same country that is trying very hard to close off the small, safe, healthy food producers so that the large, unsafe, yet very profitable corporations can have a monopoly selling their crap.
Here in BC, they're trying to shut down the small local butchers - who have no recorded instances of serious meat contamination - in order to benefit the huge slaughterhouses - who have.
It's not about safety, it's about profit. That's all.
Posted 04/06/08 at 10:32 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: When exactly was pasturization considered a necessity? Some time before refridgeration? What science was it based upon? Isn't it time for a review?
As we learn and grow we find that some of our so called scientific theories were based upon whishful thinking. For example 8 glasses of water per day. Or celphones kill people in hospitals by disrupring life support machinery. PROVE IT.
Also at what level to we deem the risk to outweigh the benifits? For drug companies, they get a high level, so why not the farmer?
WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE?
Posted 04/06/08 at 10:41 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Wilma De Bruyn from Toronto, Canada writes: Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: When exactly was pasturization considered a necessity? Some time before refridgeration? What science was it based upon? Isn't it time for a review?
As we learn and grow we find that some of our so called scientific theories were based upon whishful thinking. For example 8 glasses of water per day. Or celphones kill people in hospitals by disrupring life support machinery.
PROVE IT.
Also at what level to we deem the risk to outweigh the benifits? For drug companies, they get a high level, so why not the farmer?
WHY ARE WE NOT ALLOWED TO CHOOSE?
Posted 04/06/08 at 10:41 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Commen
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two reasons:
1. We live in a police state.
2.The present and future is all about PROFIT FOR CORPORATIONS so the CEO's can receive their big fat bonuses.
Bill C-51=Tony Clements, Health Minister = 25% into Health Corporations(But of course that's not "conflict of interest)????
Posted 04/06/08 at 10:54 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Truckerlectual ! from Vancouver, Canada writes: Angry West fella: You have a poor grasp of events in your own province
[link widoczny dla zalogowanych] The slaughter industry in BC is a trainwreck waiting to happen. You also display an unrealistic notion of the healthiness of the French. They pasteurize their milk, just like everyone else. Just as many Frenchmen are felled by food-borne illness as Canadians (perhaps you are confusing their low incidence of heart disease with imaginary gastric imperviousness). Calls for "evidence" of the efficacity of pasteurization from other posters here remind me of tobacco lobbyists' demands to see "conclusive" evidence that smoking causes cancer. Alternative foods advocates often display a paranoia about Government and suspicion of the norm that serves only to highlight their ill-informed and misleading stance on food-safety issues.
Posted 04/06/08 at 11:03 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Ignorance and historical revisionism rule, I see. The legal requirement for pasteurization of milk and dairy products is based on the fact that Bovine Tuberculosis remains a problem no matter how "safe" a particular country's system is.

Countries like France and Scotland, where unpasteurized dairy products are available, have problems with TB resulting from transmission of Bovine TB to humans. They just do a very good job of suppressing this detail. And these places have much more stringent testing requirements than we do.

Those brilliant pundits that claimn that there is no public health issue and that the requirement is a "police state' issue are displaying incredibly deep historical and contemporary ignorance and foolishness.

Not just of specific public health issues, but history and medical microbiology. Search for the term "White Death". You will be unpleasantly surprised. Then look up how many antibiotics are actually effective against TB.
Then look up drug-resistant TB.

Once you've digested those details, follow up on how many new and improved treatments for TB have been developed over the past 30 years. Bearing in mind that the two effective treatments for TB were discovered, developed and marketed in the 1950s.
And that vaccination against TB is no longer a requirement.
What you don't know won't hurt you. It will kill you.
Far to many ideologically driven ignoramuses posting here.
Posted 04/06/08 at 11:17 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: I agree with Angry. I want to be able to buy unpasturized milk as well as meat from small local producers. Galloping Goose sausages from Metchosin are out of this world.
Eat your Maple Leaf and others of that ilk if you can stand it, but I want local chickens, turkeys, rabbits, lamb and pig.
Posted 04/06/08 at 11:22 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Lance M from Canada writes: I think as the food system is compelled to be more and more local, any long distance pasterizers will become obsolete.
We won't be able to transport food long distances economically and more food will be eaten close to where it originated including milk. Talking with farmers in the 60 range drinking unpasturized milk growing up was the norm for them and their parents on out. There must be a balance between the nanny state and the individual.
Posted 04/06/08 at 11:46 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
michael hoepfner from Canada writes: Corporate farming will be the death of us all.
Posted 04/06/08 at 11:55 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
J S from Toronto, Canada writes: This 'person' broke the law. He should accept his punishment.
Posted 05/06/08 at 12:09 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: I agree with Angry and bj sutherland. The problem is that we don't even have the choice anymore. We're allowed to smoke - even around children - but we can't have raw milk because it's bad for us? Cheese made from raw milk is so much better than pasteurized, but it's not easy to find, and that's frustrating.

As Angry says, the small farmers and producers are basically being shut down in favour of corporations who have poor track records when it comes to healthy food. And it forces the locals in farm communities into somewhat clandestine transactions.
Trading goods rather than selling, for example. At the deepest level, many people believe they have a right to decide what they want to eat, and don't want it dictated to them by government and especially big business, which has a long history of disregarding our health in favour of profits.
Posted 05/06/08 at 12:42 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: Truckerlectual - Your link is to a story about recalls of ground beef originating from feedlots, not small farmers. This is why small farmers are necessary. To avoid the E.coli recalls, for example, one can simply choose to eat pastured, organic beef from small farmers. No deadly E.coli. There has to be a choice available between the corporations and the small farms I can visit and see for myself.
Posted 05/06/08 at 12:54 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
I'm Not A Westerner, I Live In BC from Canada writes: Cow's milk is for calves!
Posted 05/06/08 at 1:55 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
sun vann from nelson, Canada writes: Orest, your quote:Far too many ideologically driven ignoramuses posting here. You're one !! You supposedly quote all these scenarios which are totally irrelevant in regards to this issue - the farmer's right to sell milk. A farmer and his/her clients should have the right to purchase raw milk. Thousands of people / farmers who own a cow(s) across this country, are not allowed to drink its milk ?? Go on BIG Government and start prosecuting them - how laughable !! They've chosen to try and prosecute Micheal S. because he's a 'thorn' in the Dairy Industry's side. As many have indicated here, it's the BIG corporations and the Corporate Dairy Industry that is wielding its big stick and trying to sink this farmer. Greg Sorbere drinks it ! ! . . . as mentioned by Bob London . My 3 children were brought up on raw milk, (for 15 years) - I drank it and it's way better than the 'white water ' they sell in supermarkets. (I now buy organic milk.) It's BIG (Dumb) Government lobbied by BIG Corporations to go after this 'person' - actually he didn't sell milk, as I have heard, his customers own 'shares' in the cows and he gives his customers milk from THEIR own cows !! Hundreds of Michael Schmidt's customers support him ! The government isn't really concerned about the 'supposed' health risks, (which are minimal) it's CONTROL they want !! Michael is a smart cookie, he'll put up a good legal fight.
This is a David against Goliah story. All the best to you Michael and your supporters in Ontario - best wishes from Nelson, BC !!
Posted 05/06/08 at 2:32 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment