4/14/2008

A worthy pro-bono project

I had never before heard of the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund, but now that I have, I'm enthused. Among other things, they're engaged in defending small farmers from the ravages of New York and California's state agricultural regulators, who are (as are all American agricultural regulators) evangelical about rubbing out raw milk. Especially interesting is the saga of Meadowsweet Farms, which apparently distributes raw milk and other dairy products through an LLC into which someone wishing to enjoy good food contributes capital. The profits produced by the cows fed by the capital contributions happen to be sweet dairy goodness. Unfortunately, Meadowsweet is under withering attack from the government, which is attempting to prove that it is illegally "selling" raw milk. A fascinating situation, and a worthy pro-bono project for any (ahem) lawyer.

4 comments:

Cannelle Et Vanille said...

I'm just an law-ignorant pastry chef so I cannot really comment on legal or regulatory aspects (which you focus on a lot... ahem) but all I know is that we must change the course of the things or small farms will disappear. Tell me where I need to sign or who I need to call because I want my raw milk now! I grew up with raw milk, raw milk cheese and raw milk used in our pastry shop and we are a healthy, long living bunch of Basques. Again, what about Fritos?

Raffi said...

Much better to be a law ignorant pastry chef than a pastry ignorant business lawyer!

And yes, this is really outrageous. The foul things our school systems, say, feed kids are ok, apparently (and even subsidized!) but the milk and cheeses all of Europe enjoys are literally illegal. Not taxed, not regulated to be safe, but forbidden. Awful.

PG said...

Does the law forbid drinking raw milk from one's own cows, or just selling it to others?

Raffi said...

PG - I haven't read the statute or administrative opinion underlying the whole thing, but I've got to think the prohibition is on selling, otherwise the LLC structure isn't plausible. As to what I read to be your implicit question, from my perspective, the distinction between forbidding something and forbidding trade in it is not very comforting, though I recognize the difference.