Film Review: Farmageddon

      86 Comments on Film Review: Farmageddon

Chareva and I watched an excellent documentary over the weekend.  Farmageddon is a look at how our federal and state governments are beating up on small farmers who sell real food directly to the public.  If you still believe the fiction that we live in a free country, this film should change your mind.

Farmageddon was released in 2011, but I somehow missed it.  I became aware of it last week only because Passion River Films, which is placing Fat Head with schools and libraries, sent me a proof of a promo sheet that included both films.  Intrigued by the description, I asked them to send me a copy.

The film was written and directed by Kristin Canty, who wondered why it’s legal to buy processed junk food for her four children, but often illegal to buy real, fresh, unprocessed food directly from a local farmer.  As she put it:

“I decided I needed to tell this story. My goal was to let these honest farmers using centuries old farming practices tell their side of the stories. So, I set out to make a film. Farmageddon is in no way meant to convince anyone to drink raw milk, or eat grass fed beef, but rather an argument to allow those that want to make those choices to do so. It is simply about freedom of food choice.”

Much of the film is exactly that:  small farmers and co-op owners telling their own stories — often augmented with video footage they shot while being raided by government agencies.  Those stories ought to horrify you.  They did me.  Imagine hearing a noise in your kitchen downstairs, taking a peek down there, and seeing some burly guy dressed in black pointing a gun at you and ordering you downstairs.  (That particular farmer believed for a moment that a serial killer had broken into her home.)

In raid after raid documented in the film, police and government agents showed up in SWAT gear, guns drawn.  The raid on Rawesome Foods, which I wrote about in a previous post, was one such raid caught on video and included in the film.

I always wonder why raiding a co-op or small farm compels these government thugs to pack enough heat to take down a Central American drug cartel.  What do they think the farmers are going to do?  Hurl gallon jugs of raw milk at them?  Slap them with some unwashed spinach?  Splatter fresh eggs all over those cool SWAT uniforms?

Before anyone protests that the farmers who were raided must have been breaking some laws (we’ll set aside the stupidity of those laws for now), in many cases they weren’t.  In what struck me as the most outrageous episode documented in the film, federal agents seized and destroyed a flock of milk sheep from a family farm.  The family had legally imported the sheep from Belgium and New Zealand and jumped through a number of federal hoops in the process.  So did the feds raid the farm because the family was selling raw sheep milk illegally?

Nope.  The USDA decided – based on zero evidence – that the sheep might be carrying Mad Cow disease.  Rather than do something legal and logical, such as testing the sheep, they seized the flock and destroyed it.  When the family demanded the results of tests the feds had conducted after killing the sheep, they were told (for months on end) that the results were pending.  They only learned later, in court during a lawsuit they filed, that the results were negative and the feds had known as much almost immediately.

Since this was a government operation, the idiocy didn’t stop with destroying expensive sheep.  No, the feds decided the entire farm might be contaminated and also seized valuable equipment – they even carted away the hay that the sheep had been eating.  The feds claimed the hay had to be destroyed in a special facility to avoid the risk of spreading Mad Cow disease.  The farm husband became suspicious, followed some feds who took away his hay, and saw them dump the stuff in a nearby landfill.

When it became clear that the federal agents had destroyed a family’s livelihood to prevent a non-existent threat, the USDA expressed its deep regret by offering the family a fraction of what they’d spent to import the sheep.

And you wonder why I’m a libertarian?  As George Washington put it, Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.  Force and the threat of violence should not be employed to prevent willing sellers from making voluntary exchanges with willing buyers.  It always amazes me how many people can’t wrap their heads around that simple idea.

On my other blog, I’ve been debating a big-government lover I knew when I lived in Los Angeles.  In one round, I sent him a link to an article about a raid on a farm-to-forks dinner, during which the food cops destroyed all the farm-fresh food.  Since admitting that government regulations can be wrong would cause his head to explode, he of course immediately replied that for all we know, the uninspected food would have made people sick.

Yes, whenever you sit down for a meal (whether the food has been inspected or not), there’s a small risk you’ll eat something that will make you sick.  Whenever you drive, there’s a small risk you’ll be killed by an oncoming vehicle.  Whenever you jet ski, or play football, or hike in the woods, or do pretty much anything besides lie quietly in bed, there’s a risk you’ll be injured.  The point is, you should be allowed to take those risks if you choose.

I can choose to smoke cigarettes, drink 44-ounce glasses of Coca-Cola, buy a pint of bourbon and chug it or have unprotected sex with strangers, and no armed authorities will try to stop me.  But if I want to buy raw milk from a farmer who certainly knows it would be bad business to make his customers sick, suddenly it makes sense to some people to send in men with guns to stop us.  Amazing.

And let’s be honest here … these raids aren’t about protecting the public from the horrors of raw milk or unwashed vegetables.  They’re about protecting large producers from the small farmers whose food more and more consumers are coming around to prefer.

Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation makes several appearances in the film, as does Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms and an attorney who’s battling to give consumers the right to buy real food from real farmers.  Let’s hope he wins those battles.  As Thomas Jefferson said (quoted in the opening of Farmageddon):

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.

This is an important film, and I urge you to find a way to watch it.

Share

86 thoughts on “Film Review: Farmageddon

  1. Sally Myles

    Tom I’d be intrigued to know your views on Mad Cow Disease. My Great-Aunt, who was a surrogate Grandma to me once my own died, died of Creutzfeld Jacob Disease back in 1989, when there had been three cases in a decade in the world. She used to use a lot of meat products when she catered for Church functions, being an excellent cook. She went from being a fit and active 65 year old, to dead, in three weeks. Now I realise she was lucky, as she didn’t have to suffer for years like some from New Variant CJD. In the UK we were warned of a ticking time bomb of cases that would emerge. For the most part, that has not happened. There have been some, each and every one tragic in itself. but not the Armageddon we were promised. Anyone with a functioning brain should have seen that feeding ruminants the bodies of other ruminants was a disaster waiting to happen, but is it any worse than feeding ruminants CORN?? No we’ll not get CJD from corn fed beef, but look at what we ARE getting. Far more of us will die from diseases related to our consumption of corn, wheat and other grains than will ever die from CJD. How long will it be, I wonder, until a disease crops up related to corn consumption in cattle, some mutation of a bacterial disease that none of us are immune to and that can’t be treated with antibiotics, which of course drug companies are not developing as there is only money in drugs for chronic conditions, not acute ones where you fill one prescription then leave? The economy is based more and more on the rinse and repeat idea that we all have to be sick and tired. I should like to add that my Mum’s cousin was awarded a British Empire Medal for her charity work on CJD awareness. Took years before we all ate beef again, though. And I’m told that I’m STILL not allowed to donate blood or bone marrow, being related to a CJD victim. Go figure.

    I haven’t looked into Mad Cow disease, but feeding cows the bodies of other cows can’t be a good idea.

    Reply
  2. Drew @ Willpower Is For Fat People

    The only way to prevent large businesses from buying off government officials is to take away the power of those officials to do the large businesses a favor.

    Well … you could also eliminate the fiction of corporate personhood and roll back the centuries of legal distortions that flow from that.

    I see pros and cons with that one.

    Reply
  3. Elenor

    “If they show up here, I’ll insist the land is used only as a Disc Golf course and I have no idea where the chickens came from.”

    Tell ’em these mean-old guinea fowl ran ’em off, outta the woods, and the chickens are displaced persons for whom you’re running refugee camps! The feds might even give you a grant!! (Or import some free chickens for you from New Zealand!)

    That’s why I’ll never grow wheat on our land. I’m afraid the USDA would swoop in and give me your tax money.

    Reply
  4. Eric from Belgium

    Remember Max Weber’s theory. Government is a monopoly of violence over a given territory. Having lived on both sides of the atlantic pond, I noticed some interesting differences.
    In continental Europe, as long as the paperwork is done and the administrative machinery is fed, the system saves face. Over in the US I noticed that it is the small liberties we europeans take for granted that are oppressed. True there are bureaucratic idiocies and silly regulations and EU standards (such as defining the size of a eurocucumber ) but I have yet to hear of a SWAT or equivalent raid on a farm. There are food inspection organisation who usually go bother restaurants owners about dust on a counter, but surprisingly enough bother less the fast food chains, where they have nice stainless kitchens with non professional staff.

    I was amazed when I went to a pro cooking trade show last year to see that most of what was on display in the booths was fast food equipment!

    True to say there has been a few well publicized food scares, BSE / mad cow being one of the majors, as well as the dioxine contaminated chickens, which incidentally led to an episode of X-Files.
    But the law of unintended consequenses gave a few twists in the tail. Because of BSE, the use of gelatin in cooking, derived from animal bones, was banned for a few years. Which led to the use of other substances, amongst which carragenan, derived from sea mosses, which has been in use for centuries in gaelic coutries.

    Let us remember that many revolutions had food issues as their roots.

    E.

    I hope it sparks one here — a peaceful “throw the bums out” revolution, of course.

    Reply
  5. J

    “Poisonings, injuries and lies are absolutely NOT the inevitable result of free markets. Free markets are based on voluntary exchanges. If you’re poisoned or injured by a product, you didn’t volunteer for that. If you’re lied to, you didn’t volunteer for that. It is a proper role of government to prosecute companies that lie to, poison or injure the public. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.”

    Like most libertarians you live in a dream world. How can government prosecute without laws, inspectors etc etc. Who does the the poison consumer report his poisoning to? If its spread over states, who has the resources to investigate the poisoning. Govt, that who.

    I fear government because its mistakes are generally due to stupidity.
    I fear the free market without strict govt control MORE because its mistakes are often deliberate in the pursuit of riches no matter what the cost.

    Like most critics of libertarians, you’re basing your beliefs on what you’ve been told libertarianism is instead of what it actually is. Libertarianism doesn’t mean we have no laws and no people to enforce those laws. It means we limit government to its legitimate functions of preventing people from harming each other, adjudicating disputes, enforcing contracts, and prosecuting those who break the (legitimate) laws. Most libertarians (including me) also have no problem with government building infrastructure, since that’s spelled out in the Constitution.

    The people living in a dream world are those who believe government power beyond what I described will be used to benefit the public instead of the government itself.

    Reply
  6. Elenor

    “If they show up here, I’ll insist the land is used only as a Disc Golf course and I have no idea where the chickens came from.”

    Tell ’em these mean-old guinea fowl ran ’em off, outta the woods, and the chickens are displaced persons for whom you’re running refugee camps! The feds might even give you a grant!! (Or import some free chickens for you from New Zealand!)

    That’s why I’ll never grow wheat on our land. I’m afraid the USDA would swoop in and give me your tax money.

    Reply
  7. Eric from Belgium

    Remember Max Weber’s theory. Government is a monopoly of violence over a given territory. Having lived on both sides of the atlantic pond, I noticed some interesting differences.
    In continental Europe, as long as the paperwork is done and the administrative machinery is fed, the system saves face. Over in the US I noticed that it is the small liberties we europeans take for granted that are oppressed. True there are bureaucratic idiocies and silly regulations and EU standards (such as defining the size of a eurocucumber ) but I have yet to hear of a SWAT or equivalent raid on a farm. There are food inspection organisation who usually go bother restaurants owners about dust on a counter, but surprisingly enough bother less the fast food chains, where they have nice stainless kitchens with non professional staff.

    I was amazed when I went to a pro cooking trade show last year to see that most of what was on display in the booths was fast food equipment!

    True to say there has been a few well publicized food scares, BSE / mad cow being one of the majors, as well as the dioxine contaminated chickens, which incidentally led to an episode of X-Files.
    But the law of unintended consequenses gave a few twists in the tail. Because of BSE, the use of gelatin in cooking, derived from animal bones, was banned for a few years. Which led to the use of other substances, amongst which carragenan, derived from sea mosses, which has been in use for centuries in gaelic coutries.

    Let us remember that many revolutions had food issues as their roots.

    E.

    I hope it sparks one here — a peaceful “throw the bums out” revolution, of course.

    Reply
  8. J

    “Poisonings, injuries and lies are absolutely NOT the inevitable result of free markets. Free markets are based on voluntary exchanges. If you’re poisoned or injured by a product, you didn’t volunteer for that. If you’re lied to, you didn’t volunteer for that. It is a proper role of government to prosecute companies that lie to, poison or injure the public. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.”

    Like most libertarians you live in a dream world. How can government prosecute without laws, inspectors etc etc. Who does the the poison consumer report his poisoning to? If its spread over states, who has the resources to investigate the poisoning. Govt, that who.

    I fear government because its mistakes are generally due to stupidity.
    I fear the free market without strict govt control MORE because its mistakes are often deliberate in the pursuit of riches no matter what the cost.

    Like most critics of libertarians, you’re basing your beliefs on what you’ve been told libertarianism is instead of what it actually is. Libertarianism doesn’t mean we have no laws and no people to enforce those laws. It means we limit government to its legitimate functions of preventing people from harming each other, adjudicating disputes, enforcing contracts, and prosecuting those who break the (legitimate) laws. Most libertarians (including me) also have no problem with government building infrastructure, since that’s spelled out in the Constitution.

    The people living in a dream world are those who believe government power beyond what I described will be used to benefit the public instead of the government itself.

    Reply
  9. newyorker

    sigh…i just don’t know what the solution is. these agencies were set up to serve the people and for a long time did so before becoming captured by the big players in our economy. an example that comes to mind was the requirement to label the contents of the food on the package; immensely helpful for many of us concerned about what exactly we were putting in our mouths.

    but regulatory capture is here to stay i’m afraid. we can vote out the rascals but new ones will appear beholden to the wishes of big ag. my guess is there was plenty of work to do for that agency going after the real bad guys and after the fix was in, it had to justify its existence by raided non-lawyered up small farmers. similar to the SEC ignoring the outrageous actions of the financial industry pre-2008 and prosecuting martha stewart.

    in my more despairing moments i agree with you we should just demolish the whole rotten edifice, but th even more quickly.at may only bring on the dystopian future even more quickly.

    There is that silver lining.

    Reply
  10. Rae

    To quote a post I saw on facebook:

    The Two Most Misguided Notions Held in America:
    1. The gov’t wouldn’t really do that to us.
    2. If they did they would tell us about it on tv.

    Just from your description of what you watched it very evident that this documentary proves it. No doubt they do this to appease the larger companies that provide “food.” This country desperately needs separation of Corporation and State!

    Indeed.

    Reply
  11. Dan

    This documentary looks interesting, I’m not sure I’ll watch it yet since it will just make me feel angry and powerless. In Canada we have many farmers’ markets where farmers can peddle fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat and various other goods. I’m not sure how much it costs the farmers to do this but they seem quite popular and the prices reasonable. Is this not the case in the US? Could you not rent a booth and sell the eggs your chickens make? or are there too many hoops to jump through to get that done. I remember reading about a farmer near New York who wanted to sell eggs at a farmers’ market in NYC but said he would have to charge $12/dozen just to break even.

    There was some stuff going on around my area that was ridiculous. A farmer had been busted for selling raw milk even though he didn’t really sell it, he gave it away in exchange for a donation or some loophole like that.

    There are farmers’ markets in the U.S., but of course also restrictions on what they can sell. As one farmer explained in the film, by the time he jumped through all the federal hoops required to sell his pasture-raised hams, the ham is too expensive to be attractive to consumers.

    Reply
  12. newyorker

    sigh…i just don’t know what the solution is. these agencies were set up to serve the people and for a long time did so before becoming captured by the big players in our economy. an example that comes to mind was the requirement to label the contents of the food on the package; immensely helpful for many of us concerned about what exactly we were putting in our mouths.

    but regulatory capture is here to stay i’m afraid. we can vote out the rascals but new ones will appear beholden to the wishes of big ag. my guess is there was plenty of work to do for that agency going after the real bad guys and after the fix was in, it had to justify its existence by raided non-lawyered up small farmers. similar to the SEC ignoring the outrageous actions of the financial industry pre-2008 and prosecuting martha stewart.

    in my more despairing moments i agree with you we should just demolish the whole rotten edifice, but th even more quickly.at may only bring on the dystopian future even more quickly.

    There is that silver lining.

    Reply
  13. John2

    “And let’s be honest here … these raids aren’t about protecting the public from the horrors of raw milk or unwashed vegetables. They’re about protecting large producers from the small farmers whose food more and more consumers are coming around to prefer.”

    Tom, you must understand these raids are *training exercises* for the SWAT teams. You don’t want these poor rookies going up against *real bad-guys* their first time out in the field do you? They might get hurt!

    Grin.

    I see the point.

    Reply
  14. Rae

    To quote a post I saw on facebook:

    The Two Most Misguided Notions Held in America:
    1. The gov’t wouldn’t really do that to us.
    2. If they did they would tell us about it on tv.

    Just from your description of what you watched it very evident that this documentary proves it. No doubt they do this to appease the larger companies that provide “food.” This country desperately needs separation of Corporation and State!

    Indeed.

    Reply
  15. Jan's Sushi Bar

    “How long will it be, I wonder, until a disease crops up related to corn consumption in cattle, some mutation of a bacterial disease that none of us are immune to and that can’t be treated with antibiotics, which of course drug companies are not developing as there is only money in drugs for chronic conditions, not acute ones where you fill one prescription then leave?”

    It already exists – it’s called E. Coli 0157:H7.

    Reply
  16. Dan

    This documentary looks interesting, I’m not sure I’ll watch it yet since it will just make me feel angry and powerless. In Canada we have many farmers’ markets where farmers can peddle fruits, vegetables, eggs, meat and various other goods. I’m not sure how much it costs the farmers to do this but they seem quite popular and the prices reasonable. Is this not the case in the US? Could you not rent a booth and sell the eggs your chickens make? or are there too many hoops to jump through to get that done. I remember reading about a farmer near New York who wanted to sell eggs at a farmers’ market in NYC but said he would have to charge $12/dozen just to break even.

    There was some stuff going on around my area that was ridiculous. A farmer had been busted for selling raw milk even though he didn’t really sell it, he gave it away in exchange for a donation or some loophole like that.

    There are farmers’ markets in the U.S., but of course also restrictions on what they can sell. As one farmer explained in the film, by the time he jumped through all the federal hoops required to sell his pasture-raised hams, the ham is too expensive to be attractive to consumers.

    Reply
  17. John2

    “And let’s be honest here … these raids aren’t about protecting the public from the horrors of raw milk or unwashed vegetables. They’re about protecting large producers from the small farmers whose food more and more consumers are coming around to prefer.”

    Tom, you must understand these raids are *training exercises* for the SWAT teams. You don’t want these poor rookies going up against *real bad-guys* their first time out in the field do you? They might get hurt!

    Grin.

    I see the point.

    Reply
  18. Jan's Sushi Bar

    “How long will it be, I wonder, until a disease crops up related to corn consumption in cattle, some mutation of a bacterial disease that none of us are immune to and that can’t be treated with antibiotics, which of course drug companies are not developing as there is only money in drugs for chronic conditions, not acute ones where you fill one prescription then leave?”

    It already exists – it’s called E. Coli 0157:H7.

    Reply
  19. JM

    I watched the documentary and a good portion deals with raw milk. I live in a rural county with a good number of smaller farmers. Over 20 years ago we had a number of dairy farmers which belonged to a local coop for milk storage and sales. In the documentary the milk farmers shown were intelligent and well educated which speaks in their favor. Here we had several that didn’t maintain their property well, cut corners, and numerous times ended up spoiling/contaminating the coops milk. I witnessed this personally. Eventually it became too much and the coop is gone. Now there just a few dairy farmers left here. There is one who is willing to sell raw milk for use only with animals and pets. I used to buy from him. However his farm is horrible, a mess, the guy is a packrat, and I saw behind his barn the bodies of dead animals he never cleaned up.

    So the documentary features a better more responsible individual. There will always be the lax person who will ruin it for everyone else.

    That’s part of what it’s up to consumers to decide: do you trust this farmer or not?

    Reply
  20. JM

    I watched the documentary and a good portion deals with raw milk. I live in a rural county with a good number of smaller farmers. Over 20 years ago we had a number of dairy farmers which belonged to a local coop for milk storage and sales. In the documentary the milk farmers shown were intelligent and well educated which speaks in their favor. Here we had several that didn’t maintain their property well, cut corners, and numerous times ended up spoiling/contaminating the coops milk. I witnessed this personally. Eventually it became too much and the coop is gone. Now there just a few dairy farmers left here. There is one who is willing to sell raw milk for use only with animals and pets. I used to buy from him. However his farm is horrible, a mess, the guy is a packrat, and I saw behind his barn the bodies of dead animals he never cleaned up.

    So the documentary features a better more responsible individual. There will always be the lax person who will ruin it for everyone else.

    That’s part of what it’s up to consumers to decide: do you trust this farmer or not?

    Reply
  21. Sandi

    I am totally against this kind of criminalization of healthy food, I do believe that smaller government isn’t the answer, nor is taking the power away from people in power to do things for corporations. I agree that what has happened here is wrong but I want those people to be put to better use, to see our tax money going to important things that benefit the people, not corporate interests.

    I am a believer in government, it puts people to work and serves the people, what we need is our government to put this same zealousness into finding the banksters that have and are continuing to ruin this country with their financial schemes. If our government put have the energy into stopping those crimes as they do into trying to force corporate foods (and corporate everything else) down our throats this country would be in much better shape that it is.

    I want a big government that both employs and serves the people, not one that employs and serves corporations. To that end we must remove financial incentives from elections, we need to give every candidate the budget and that’s all they get, no corporate donations, or private for that matter, just an even playing field for all without out the taint of money from special interests.

    I’m sure everyone would like to see government power used wisely and beneficially, but that’s a pipe dream. It amuses me when people who don’t actually understand libertarian thinking accuse us of being dreamers who believe businessmen are all nice. (Not saying you made that accusation, but it’s a frequent one.) Going all the way back to Adam Smith and his book “The Wealth of Nations,” libertarians have insisted that people are self-interested and act out of self-interest. Smith warned of what happens when self-interested merchants get together with self-interested government regulators. The true dreamers are those who believe that once people go to work for government, self-interest and greed just magically disappear. Nope … government simply gives greedy, self-interested people the power of coercion over others.

    As for government creating jobs, sorry, but that’s not possible. Government spending can transfer jobs from one industry to another, or from a future generation to the present through deficit spending, but it cannot create a net gain in jobs any more than it can create a net gain of water in your bathtub by scooping water from one side to the other. Government is a zero-sum game. The money spent to “create” jobs is money confiscated from the taxpayers (now or in the future in the case of borrowing). That means those taxpayers can no longer spend the money to buy the products or services of their choice, which means they no longer create or support jobs producing those products or services. The government-supported industry’s gain is some other industry’s loss.

    Much longer explanation here, if you’re interested:

    http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=400

    Reply
  22. Sandi

    I am totally against this kind of criminalization of healthy food, I do believe that smaller government isn’t the answer, nor is taking the power away from people in power to do things for corporations. I agree that what has happened here is wrong but I want those people to be put to better use, to see our tax money going to important things that benefit the people, not corporate interests.

    I am a believer in government, it puts people to work and serves the people, what we need is our government to put this same zealousness into finding the banksters that have and are continuing to ruin this country with their financial schemes. If our government put have the energy into stopping those crimes as they do into trying to force corporate foods (and corporate everything else) down our throats this country would be in much better shape that it is.

    I want a big government that both employs and serves the people, not one that employs and serves corporations. To that end we must remove financial incentives from elections, we need to give every candidate the budget and that’s all they get, no corporate donations, or private for that matter, just an even playing field for all without out the taint of money from special interests.

    I’m sure everyone would like to see government power used wisely and beneficially, but that’s a pipe dream. It amuses me when people who don’t actually understand libertarian thinking accuse us of being dreamers who believe businessmen are all nice. (Not saying you made that accusation, but it’s a frequent one.) Going all the way back to Adam Smith and his book “The Wealth of Nations,” libertarians have insisted that people are self-interested and act out of self-interest. Smith warned of what happens when self-interested merchants get together with self-interested government regulators. The true dreamers are those who believe that once people go to work for government, self-interest and greed just magically disappear. Nope … government simply gives greedy, self-interested people the power of coercion over others.

    As for government creating jobs, sorry, but that’s not possible. Government spending can transfer jobs from one industry to another, or from a future generation to the present through deficit spending, but it cannot create a net gain in jobs any more than it can create a net gain of water in your bathtub by scooping water from one side to the other. Government is a zero-sum game. The money spent to “create” jobs is money confiscated from the taxpayers (now or in the future in the case of borrowing). That means those taxpayers can no longer spend the money to buy the products or services of their choice, which means they no longer create or support jobs producing those products or services. The government-supported industry’s gain is some other industry’s loss.

    Much longer explanation here, if you’re interested:

    http://www.tomnaughton.com/?p=400

    Reply
  23. Kathy

    Well, that was depressing. I watched Farmageddon last night.

    Barring accident and major disease, I could easily live another 25-30 years. What will pass for food by then?

    It will be something in a squeeze tube and it will just be called FOOD.

    Reply
  24. Kathy

    Well, that was depressing. I watched Farmageddon last night.

    Barring accident and major disease, I could easily live another 25-30 years. What will pass for food by then?

    It will be something in a squeeze tube and it will just be called FOOD.

    Reply
  25. Tori

    I saw “Farmageddon” about a month ago. It was both shocking and well done at the same time. People need to see what governmental officials will stoop to in an effort to stamp out anything they disagree with.

    I’m not political, but I do care about where our food comes from and what happens to it before it gets to me. I also don’t like what agribusiness is doing to the environment. For that reason, I raise chickens and try to keep a garden going.

    I’m a person who cannot consume anything made with homogenized or ultra-pasturized milk. I simply can’t digest it no matter how many lactaid pills I swallow. But when I drink raw milk. I do fine. No problems with it at all. In fact, I understand that this is rather common. You’d think the dairy industry would get behind legalizing raw milk because with more and more people becoming dairy intolerant, they’re losing customers faster than they can replace them.

    Alas, such is not the case. They’d rather shoot themselves in the foot.

    And as to your comment: “Whenever you jet ski, or play football, or hike in the woods, or do pretty much anything besides lie quietly in bed, there’s a risk you’ll be injured.” Even lying quietly in bed brings a risk. Some insurance companies sell policies for falling space junk. It could fall through your roof and onto your head. So the only way to be completely risk free is to be dead. But if space junk fell on your head, you’d probably be dead anyway. So, end of risk.

    Me? I’m willing to take the risk to drink milk that doesn’t make me sick.

    Reply
  26. Tori

    I saw “Farmageddon” about a month ago. It was both shocking and well done at the same time. People need to see what governmental officials will stoop to in an effort to stamp out anything they disagree with.

    I’m not political, but I do care about where our food comes from and what happens to it before it gets to me. I also don’t like what agribusiness is doing to the environment. For that reason, I raise chickens and try to keep a garden going.

    I’m a person who cannot consume anything made with homogenized or ultra-pasturized milk. I simply can’t digest it no matter how many lactaid pills I swallow. But when I drink raw milk. I do fine. No problems with it at all. In fact, I understand that this is rather common. You’d think the dairy industry would get behind legalizing raw milk because with more and more people becoming dairy intolerant, they’re losing customers faster than they can replace them.

    Alas, such is not the case. They’d rather shoot themselves in the foot.

    And as to your comment: “Whenever you jet ski, or play football, or hike in the woods, or do pretty much anything besides lie quietly in bed, there’s a risk you’ll be injured.” Even lying quietly in bed brings a risk. Some insurance companies sell policies for falling space junk. It could fall through your roof and onto your head. So the only way to be completely risk free is to be dead. But if space junk fell on your head, you’d probably be dead anyway. So, end of risk.

    Me? I’m willing to take the risk to drink milk that doesn’t make me sick.

    Reply
  27. Walter B

    While I greatly appreciate you advice, I think I’d better skip watching the film. A few minutes into the trailer I found my blood pressure going up.

    Reply
  28. Walter B

    While I greatly appreciate you advice, I think I’d better skip watching the film. A few minutes into the trailer I found my blood pressure going up.

    Reply
  29. hausfrau

    As a regular purchaser of raw milk I can attest to the “sliding scale” mental dissonance. I give raw milk to my children. It is full of soft-yellow toned butterfat and tastes incredible. My children have noticably less eczema and diaper rash while drinking it. Two years ago a cousin of mine I had recently reconnected with saw me “like” raw milk on facebook. She sent me a lengthy series of unsolicited nasty, vitriolic text messages telling me how ignorant I am and how she worked on a dairy and she knows how filthy daries are, how I must not love my children, etc. etc. I blocked her and cut off all contact with her because she impressed me as so hysterical that she might report me to CPS or something just for giving my kids raw milk or some other made up complaint (CPS: yet another corrupt government agency). The point is, one persons decision not to vaccinate their children or to give them raw milk, or to let them eat an unhealthy 7/11 diet is another person’s definition of child endangerment. An obese person’s food addiction is just as destructive as alcoholism, is just as destructive as a cocaine habit. Who gets to decide where my body and my family ends and the government begins once we decide to apply government force to suppressing vices?
    On the subjest of raw milk safety, I take responsibility for my choice of farmer. I think if it is sold in retail like in California it is a good compromise that raw milk dairies be inspected and tested. Raw milk dairies in california are much more stringently monitored than conventional daries. I say this because the customer isn’t able to walk through and observe the dairy on their own. At my farmer’s dairy I’m able to observe the milking and see how it is stored. Better than any other insurance, I know that my farmers feed all 6 (ranging in age from 10 to 6mos) of their kids on their own raw milk products.

    I’ll be the filthy dairy your cousin observed wasn’t selling raw milk, either.

    Reply
  30. hausfrau

    As a regular purchaser of raw milk I can attest to the “sliding scale” mental dissonance. I give raw milk to my children. It is full of soft-yellow toned butterfat and tastes incredible. My children have noticably less eczema and diaper rash while drinking it. Two years ago a cousin of mine I had recently reconnected with saw me “like” raw milk on facebook. She sent me a lengthy series of unsolicited nasty, vitriolic text messages telling me how ignorant I am and how she worked on a dairy and she knows how filthy daries are, how I must not love my children, etc. etc. I blocked her and cut off all contact with her because she impressed me as so hysterical that she might report me to CPS or something just for giving my kids raw milk or some other made up complaint (CPS: yet another corrupt government agency). The point is, one persons decision not to vaccinate their children or to give them raw milk, or to let them eat an unhealthy 7/11 diet is another person’s definition of child endangerment. An obese person’s food addiction is just as destructive as alcoholism, is just as destructive as a cocaine habit. Who gets to decide where my body and my family ends and the government begins once we decide to apply government force to suppressing vices?
    On the subjest of raw milk safety, I take responsibility for my choice of farmer. I think if it is sold in retail like in California it is a good compromise that raw milk dairies be inspected and tested. Raw milk dairies in california are much more stringently monitored than conventional daries. I say this because the customer isn’t able to walk through and observe the dairy on their own. At my farmer’s dairy I’m able to observe the milking and see how it is stored. Better than any other insurance, I know that my farmers feed all 6 (ranging in age from 10 to 6mos) of their kids on their own raw milk products.

    I’ll be the filthy dairy your cousin observed wasn’t selling raw milk, either.

    Reply
  31. Hayley

    Man even though you know what’s coming in this video, it makes you cringe. The feeling of injustice must be one of the worst among all feelings!

    Reply
  32. Hayley

    Man even though you know what’s coming in this video, it makes you cringe. The feeling of injustice must be one of the worst among all feelings!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.