The Harvard Law Society hosted a debate concerning the safety of raw milk versus pasteurized milk. The debate also addresses our fundamental right to consume the foods of our choice. I would just like to comment on the aspect of food rights. The FDA has stated that we have no fundamental right to consume any particular food. This statement has alarmed and angered many Americans who realize the dangerous implications of this FDA statement. I would like to share my understanding of what it means to have the fundamental right to choose what food we consume.
As I perceive this issue......having a fundamental right to certain foods does not mean that someone else is required or obligated to produce food in the manner that we request....or that we should be provided this food for free. An example would be raw milk. If there were no farmers who wished to produce and sell raw milk...there should be no laws to force them to do so.In that respect we have no inherent right. I also do not believe that we have an inherent right to free food.
But let's look at what is really happening. We have farmers across the country who wish to produce and sell fresh unheated milk but yet are not allowed to do so. We also have the consumers who are passionate about drinking raw milk because many have experienced its health benefits. Millions are allergic or senstitive to the processed milk that is found in the grocery stores... and we do have the right to choose an alternative if we produce it ourselves or someone else is willing to produce it and sell it to us. I think that the point should be that we may not have an inherent which would force others to make certain foods available to us but we do and should have the right to produce and or purchase our own food in any manner that we choose and that government does not have the "right" to prevent us from doing so. I believe that this is the distinction that needs to be made.
Please take the time to listen to the debate below. I thought both sides were fairly respectful and I am grateful to Harvard Food Law for hosting this educational event.
One other thing to keep in mind while watching this video.... I was a bit disappointed that the following point wasn't made. From what I have read, there are certain elements in UNHEATED milk that reportedly help to destroy the pathogens which can be found in unheated milk. Once the milk is pasteurized these antibacterial and antiviral defenders are neutralized. The question then needs to be asked, is there then more danger of the milk fostering bacterial growth after pasteurization...if contamination occurs after pasteurization?
As I perceive this issue......having a fundamental right to certain foods does not mean that someone else is required or obligated to produce food in the manner that we request....or that we should be provided this food for free. An example would be raw milk. If there were no farmers who wished to produce and sell raw milk...there should be no laws to force them to do so.In that respect we have no inherent right. I also do not believe that we have an inherent right to free food.
But let's look at what is really happening. We have farmers across the country who wish to produce and sell fresh unheated milk but yet are not allowed to do so. We also have the consumers who are passionate about drinking raw milk because many have experienced its health benefits. Millions are allergic or senstitive to the processed milk that is found in the grocery stores... and we do have the right to choose an alternative if we produce it ourselves or someone else is willing to produce it and sell it to us. I think that the point should be that we may not have an inherent which would force others to make certain foods available to us but we do and should have the right to produce and or purchase our own food in any manner that we choose and that government does not have the "right" to prevent us from doing so. I believe that this is the distinction that needs to be made.
Please take the time to listen to the debate below. I thought both sides were fairly respectful and I am grateful to Harvard Food Law for hosting this educational event.
One other thing to keep in mind while watching this video.... I was a bit disappointed that the following point wasn't made. From what I have read, there are certain elements in UNHEATED milk that reportedly help to destroy the pathogens which can be found in unheated milk. Once the milk is pasteurized these antibacterial and antiviral defenders are neutralized. The question then needs to be asked, is there then more danger of the milk fostering bacterial growth after pasteurization...if contamination occurs after pasteurization?
if a farmer want to sell raw milk to a customer who wants raw milk, this is an oral contract and the government shouldn't be able to interfere in a legal contract since it is proven right from all time in humanity time on this planet, because the right existed for thousands of years and is a right from time immemorial the government is operating for the benefit of big cooperation's, altered milk is not the same.
ReplyDelete