You Drink It Raw?

Here is a letter I wrote in response to the Senate Ag Committee hearing on the question of raw milk sales. Currently, in PA, only certain permit-holding farmers are allowed to sell raw milk under stringent regulations. I would encourage any interested parties to drop Senator Brubaker a note of their own.

The Honorable Senator Mike Brubaker
Senate Box 203036 Harrisburg, PA 17120-3036

September 19, 2007

Dear Senator Brubaker:

As a constituent of yours and a citizen of this Commonwealth, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your fellow members of the Ag Committee for the hearing you held yesterday on the issue of raw milk sales. As you know, this issue is important to many people from all walks of life. I sincerely appreciate the invitation to communicate with you further on the subject of yesterday’s hearing.

Much of the testimony yesterday missed the point by focusing exclusively on the question of safety. I would respectfully suggest that the most important aspect of this debate is not food safety, but rather individual freedom and responsibility. While the state legislature, through the PDA and other agencies, does have a role to play in ensuring the safety of the food supply, your jurisdiction in this matter does not extend to interfering in the direct relationships of individual citizens. I recognize that this concept is directly in opposition to the beliefs and ideas that have governed our approach to public safety in PA for the last few decades, but I believe it is crucial to understanding how the question of raw milk sales fits into the larger questions of freedom vs. safety that we face today. Please allow me to explain further.

As elected officials, your authority is derived from the collective authority of the electorate. It is the fashion to conclude from this that elected officials have a duty to follow the will of the majority, but in reality, the source of government’s power places certain inherent limits on the just exercise of that power. If, as the founders believed, all men are created equal, then it follows that no man has the authority to use force against his fellow man except in the defense of his own rights. More to the point, as he is not vested with such authority himself, he cannot delegate it to another to exercise for him. This principle, stated so eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, is acknowledged in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution and in Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the PA Constitution. It is best summed up in the words of Frederic Bastiat a century and a half ago:

“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. What, then, is law? It is the collective exercise of the individual right to self defense. … If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right.”(emphasis mine)

During one of the public meetings on this issue, I pointed out to Rep. Cutler and the other legislators in attendance that laws create crime. From a lawmaker’s point of view, it is naturally tempting to look for legislative solutions to the real or perceived problems that may come to your attention. However, most problems faced by our society do not rise to a level which calls for solving them at gunpoint. While some may take issue with such a blunt characterization of the matter, the outstanding arrest warrant for Mark Nolt illustrates perfectly the true nature of law. Government is force, and every conflict with government is ultimately resolved, directly or indirectly, by force.

I do not intend to imply that government is inherently bad; I do, however, believe that the difference between unjust use of force by an individual (violent crime) and unjust use of force by government (the representative of the individual) lies only in the extent of the damage caused. In other words, government abuse of power is simply violent crime on steroids - organized crime, if you will.

With this in mind, the question before you is not whether raw milk is as safe as commercially processed milk, nor is it whether five cows is a more reasonable exemption than one. The question is whether the real or perceived risks of direct farmer-to-consumer sales of raw milk are so great as to constitute a violation of the consumer’s natural rights. If raw milk is indeed a deadly poison being marketed as a food to unsuspecting customers, then you have a duty to prohibit such marketing. If, however, it is simply a matter of preference, such as ordering a rare steak or smoking a cigar, then the fact that there are risks associated with one’s decision does not authorize you to interfere in that decision.

Understanding this concept will immediately clarify the troubling questions of liability and testing standards. Since no one but the individual has the right to decide what to eat, no one but the individual is responsible for the consequences of that decision. The farmer should be held liable only for clear negligence that endangers the health of others, such as selling milk produced in evidently unsanitary conditions, but not for risks that are inherent in our existence on this planet or in the conscious decision of the consumer. And, just as an individual may act in self-defense only when he is confronted by an immediate threat, the action of the state against a negligent farmer should be a response to actual danger, not a preventative measure based on fear.

The gentleman from the State Veterinary Medical Association attempted to justify state intervention by pointing out that children likely consume more milk than adults and that they need assistance in determining what is best for them. This obviously true statement sidesteps the question of who is responsible for rendering that assistance. Some in our society are of the opinion that it takes a village, but the fact is that children are given by their Creator, not to villages, but to parents. State intervention between a parent and child is even less excusable than between adults – it is only justified in the face of serious negligence or harm to the child. If we deny the right of a parent to make basic nutritional decisions for their own child, how can we justly arrogate such a right to ourselves through our elected officials?

You asked several times whether a distinction ought to be made between private farms and corporate farms. While on the surface the answer is yes, the proper distinction lies in the actual situation. The family farm may be a member of a corporation for tax purposes, but the individual, acting as an individual, still ought to have the right to sell directly to others without interference from the state, because that activity, for all practical purposes, is unaffected by the legal status of the farm.

Lastly, I strongly urge you to keep in mind that the statistics presented by Mr. Huff of the Department of Health were underwhelming, to say the least, and I ask you to keep part V of Mr. Snyder’s testimony in mind when considering them. Also, as elected officials, you are put in a no-win situation when unelected bureaucrats ask you to determine what number of annual deaths or hospitalizations are acceptable. The only possible responses are bound to implicate you either in apparent disregard for human life or in philanthropic tyranny of the most oppressive kind. This sort of false dilemma can be avoided by keeping the proper role of government in view, and recognizing that it is neither your responsibility nor your right to make such determinations.

Thank you so much for your consideration of this issue and for taking the time to hear from me. I would be more than happy to meet with you for more discussion. May God bless you.

Sincerely,


...

Cc: Senator Waugh
Senator O’Pake
Senator Scarnati
Senator Eichelberger
Senator Folmer
Senator Madigan
Senator Punt
Senator Kitchen
Senator Logan
Senator Wozniak