At approximately 9:00AM this morning (Wednesday, March 9), a local organic farmer was stopped on his delivery route by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.  His vehicle and all product were confiscated.

Alvin Schlangen of Freeport, MN, offers direct-to-consumer sales of organic eggs, milk, meat and produce.  This morning, Department of Agriculture vehicles surrounded his truck at his first delivery site near Macalester College.  The Department then confiscated his delivery vehicle loaded with fresh organic foods.  The delivery vehicle was towed to 625 Robert Street in Downtown St. Paul.

The Department indicated to Schlangen that they will not be return any of his product.  Nearly 70 families and at least one food co-op are awaiting delivery.  None are likely to receive the goods for which they paid.

As of right now (11:20AM), Schlangen is at 625 Robert Street waiting (hoping) for the release of his vehicle.  Schlangen reports the Department did provide a Warrant.

This is just another one of the Department of Agriculture’s tireless attacks upon anything that falls outside of totalizing corporatist distribution.   Under the banner of  “public health,” the government teams up with private cartels to essentially mandate the consumption of its low-quality to no-quality food products.

More information about Schlangen can be found on at mnorganiceggs.com

Here is another account from: http://nathanmhansen.blogspot.com/

At 9:00 this morning, Alvin Schlangen was boxed in near Macalester College. Two St. Paul squad cars and two Department of Agriculture squad cars boxed in Alvin Schlangen’s van as he stopped to deliver eggs to a co-op in St. Paul. He was not arrested, but his van was impounded with all of its farm-fresh contents. He was not allowed to deliver eggs to the co-op. His van was taken to 625 Robert Street and remains there with its contents. The people from the Department of Agriculture apparently had a warrant.

The Department of Agriculture indicated that they were stealing all of the contents of Alvin’s van. There are 60 families awaiting milk and eggs and other food from Alvin.

Presently at 11:00 a.m. Alvin Schlangen is at the Department of Agriculture Headquarters awaiting word from government officials about what is going to happen to the contents of the truck.

We can see that the Mark Dayton administration is every bit as bad as the Tim Pawlenty administration on the issue of food freedom. Raw milk is legal in Minnesota, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture just doesn’t believe people can cooperatively own cows and have milk that they have paid for delivered by an agent of the farmer. As dark people are bombed overseas to bring them freedom, we live in an intolerable police state at home. I have remarked several times that there is likely much more food freedom in Iran than there is in the United States. Further, real food safety threats like high fructose corn syrup and aspartame are never investigated by the “authorities.”

Call Governor Mark Dayton today and tell him you don’t agree with his police state tactics interfering with food freedom: 651-201-3400.

See a copy of the search warrant here. (pdf)

A dairy farmer challenged British Columbia’s prohibition of the sale and distribution of unpasteurized and unhomogenized milk. Alice Jongerden says her “cowshare” business called Home On The Range has 400 members. But the province’s March 2010 law makes distribution of raw milk punishable by up to 3 years in prison and a $3 million fine.
Jongerden says Home On The Range and its 400 members sold raw milk from 2006 to 2010. “Fresh milk has high nutritional value,” Jongerden says. “Fresh milk contains vitamins, minerals, nutrients, beneficial enzymes, natural immune system boosters, and healthy fats and proteins. Fresh milk also has beneficial health effects that have yet to be fully understood by scientists. Processing milk by pasteurization and homogenization significantly reduces the nutritional value of milk.”
But a court order in March 2010 prohibited her from packaging and distributing “fresh milk” based on the province’s Public Health Act.
After the order was handed down, Jongerden says, she kept distributing the milk, with labels stating that the product was “not for human consumption.”
She was found in contempt of the order, but was not penalized.
If the regulation is struck down, Jongerden intends to resume the cowshare’s operations.
Jongerden adds that fresh milk is available in at least 20 states and nearly all of the European Union. Health risks associated with processed milk include allergies, asthma and lactose intolerance, she says, and “as is the case with processed milk, risks associated with fresh milk can demonstrably be managed with appropriate regulation and provision of information to consumers. An outright prohibition is unnecessary.”
Jongerden wants the Public Health Act Transitional Regulation prohibiting sale of raw milk declared unconstitutional because it “deprives the plaintiff, contrary to the principles of fundamental justice, of the right to security of the person and the right to liberty.”
She is represented by Jason Gratl of Vancouver, B.C.
Raw milk is a contentious subject in the United States as well. Many people consider it more nutritional than pasteurized milk, but one organic dairy farmer in Vermont told Courthouse News that he has stopped selling it, as the cost of defending a single claim of raw milk-originated illness could put him out of business.

Source: Courthouse News

Cynthia Kapple has been drinking raw milk since she was a child, and she’s been selling it now for 10 years.

The milk tastes better than pasteurized milk and is better for you, she said.

One of her customers, Vickie Tucker, also swears by raw milk.

“My daughters won’t drink store-bought milk anymore,” Tucker said. “They don’t like it.”

Kapple and Tucker believe Oregon’s law that caps a farm’s raw cow’s milk production is just plain wrong.

“It’s a raw food,” Kapple said. “This isn’t something with chemicals added to it that might be carcinogenic. (The law) blows me away.”

The two Albany-area residents are among thousands of Oregonians aligning behind legislation that will expand a dairy’s ability to supply customers with raw cow’s milk.

House Bill 2222 is sponsored by a diverse group of lawmakers, including a physician, Sen. Alan Bates, D-Ashland, and several conservative Republicans.

The mainstream Oregon dairy industry opposes HB2222.

“The main issue is there is no way you can guarantee the safety of consumers from raw milk,” said Roger Beyer, a lobbyist for the Oregon Dairy Farmers Association. “And what happens is if anyone gets sick from a milk product, consumers don’t look at it as raw versus pasteurized. It’s milk. And there would be impact to the whole industry from that.”

In addition to concerns over human safety, dairy farmers wonder who is going to pay the costs of licensing raw milk dairies.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture estimates the annual cost of licensing raw milk producers at $10,000 per dairy.

“That’s if you don’t have any screened positives, and life is beautiful,” said Jim Postlewait, food program manager with the department.

Testing for pathogens in raw milk is far more expensive than standard dairy tests, which look for drugs and somatic cell counts.

Oregon dairies currently pay between $135 to $812 a year for state inspections, with larger dairies paying more.

“We want to know who will pay for that (additional) cost,” Beyer said.

Under a small-farm exception to Oregon law, raw cow’s milk producers with three or fewer cows aren’t required to be licensed. Dairies are prohibited from producing raw cow’s milk from more than three cows. Also under Oregon law, dairies are prohibited from advertising their raw cow’s milk and can’t transport if off their farm.

Under proposed amendments to HB2222, raw milk producers with more than three cows, or more than nine goats or nine sheep, must be licensed. Proposed amendments to the bill apparently would limit a dairy’s raw milk production to 10 cows.

Oregon’s current law crimps a raw dairy producer from meeting demand, said Kendra Kimbirauskas of the group Friends of Family Farmers, which is behind HB2222.

“We are hearing from raw milk producers throughout Oregon that they have more consumers than they legally are able to supply milk for under the current exemption,” Kimbirauskas wrote in an e-mail response to Capital Press questions.

The law also restricts a raw milk producer’s ability to buy affordable feed, which drives up production costs, Kapple said.

“We have to buy our grain retail,” Kapple said, “whereas a commercial dairy can buy their feed at wholesale prices.”

As a result, Kapple said, raw milk typically is high-priced, and affordable only to upper-income Oregonians. Kapple, for example, charges $7 for a half-gallon of her raw, organic milk.

While raw milk has advocates, it also has detractors.

Oregon senior epidemiologist Bill Keene said disease outbreaks from consumers drinking raw milk “are a staple” in epidemiology circles.

“People who drink raw milk are at very high risk for getting infections, relative to people who drink pasteurized milk,” he said. “If more people drink raw milk, more people will get sick from raw milk. That’s a truism.”

When asked if he would drink raw milk, he said: “Not knowingly.”

When asked if he would recommend his family drink raw milk, he said: “I would be horrified to hear about it.

“It is such an unnecessary risk when pasteurization is cheap and a highly effective public-health intervention,” Keene said.

To date, 13 states, including Washington and Idaho, allow raw cow’s milk sales in stores and 29 allow raw cow’s milk sales of some sort.

Oregon started restricting raw cow’s milk sales in 1999.

Kapple sells the 6 to 9 gallons of milk that her cow produces each day to 15 customers, who drive to the Midway Farms produce stand and pick up the pre-ordered milk.

Several other local residents have asked if they could buy the milk, but Kapple is unable to supply them.

“They said they haven’t been able to find a local supplier,” Kapple said.

One of the reasons Kapple decided to purchase the cow was because she couldn’t find raw milk for her family.

“I believe very strongly in my family having raw milk,” she said.

“I don’t understand how this scare (over raw milk) has come up,” Kapple said. “I personally have never met anybody who has gotten sick from raw milk.”

Source: KVAL.com

Three Republican state senators are proposing legislation to legalize most sales of raw milk in Minnesota.

The bill would permit direct farm-to-consumer sales of unpasteurized milk, including sales at farmers markets and at private homes. Current law allows sales of the product only at the farm which produced the milk.

Raw milk supporters want state lawmakers to ease restrictions on the product, even though the state health department says consuming unpasteurized milk is a serious health risk.

The proposal comes from Sens. Sean Nienow of Cambridge, Gary Dahms of Redwood Falls and Claire Robling of Jordan, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.

The legislation comes in the middle of a fight between state regulators and a southern Minnesota farmer over the issue.

The state says raw milk sold illegally by dairy farmer Michael Hartmann has sickened at least 15 people with E. coli, campylobacter and cryptosporidium illnesses.

Hartmann has denied the allegations, but last month a district court judge reviewed the evidence and said he has “no doubt” the state is right.

The state’s investigation of Michael Hartmann has caused an ever-widening debate over the wisdom of drinking the unpasteurized dairy product.

The Hartmann case lead the agriculture department to crackdown on what they say are illegal deliveries and sales of raw milk at Twin Cities drop sites.

State law bans all but occasional sales and only at the farm where the milk is produced With the crackdown, most of those drop-site sales have ended. Raw milk supporter Greg Schmidt of St. Paul says many adherents are now driving several hours to a farm to get unpasteurized milk.

“This is a legal product in the state,” Schmidt said. “But this burden that forces consumers to go to the farm to procure it just doesn’t make any sense on any level.”

Schmidt welcomes the proposed legislation because it would allow raw milk sales at farmers markets as well as homes.

None of the bill’s three co-sponsors could be reached to discuss the legislation. The bill will serve as a forum to debate the merits and risks of drinking raw milk. According to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly 1,700 illnesses and 2 deaths were traced to raw milk over the decade ending in 2008.

There’s a growing debate nationally over whether and how to regulate raw milk, as natural, unprocessed foods grow in popularity. State laws on raw milk vary widely. Wisconsin, which bans sales, last year empaneled a large working group to study the issue. A report is expected next month.

Already lining up against the new Minnesota bill is the Minnesota Milk Producers Association, which represents the state’s conventional dairy farmers, those who pasteurize their milk.

Association Executive Director Bob Lefebvre says any bill allowing easier sales of raw milk is a bad idea.

“That’s a very dangerous thing to do,” he said. “And we shouldn’t go there.”

Lefebvre said if anything, the state should tighten regulation of raw milk even more. He said any farm selling the product should be regularly inspected and tested by the state, something that doesn’t occur now.

Lefebvre and others say study after study has shown that raw milk is a health risk. Supporters though argue they should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to accept those risks and buy the product.

Source: Minnesota Public Radio

By Pete Kennedy, Esq.

For the past month, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has been working to erode the freedom of the state’s residents to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice, particularly raw milk.  Through various enforcement actions taken since the last week in May, MDA has created a chilling effect on the exercise of basic rights by consumers to purchase the foods they believe best for the health of their families.  Likewise, MDA’s actions have shown little regard for rights of farmers guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution to sell the products of the farm direct to consumers.

MDA’s first enforcement action occurred on May 26 when officials from MDA and the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) along with the Sibley County Sheriff and eight armed deputies set foot on the farm of Mike and Diana Hartmann to execute a criminal search warrant.  The officials were at the farm for more than six hours and embargoed (i.e., ordered the Hartmanns not to sell existing inventory) thousands of dollars in meat and dairy products as well as ordering the Hartmanns to discontinue the sales of any product whose production, processing or sale was not in compliance with applicable law, including an order that the Hartmanns cease delivering raw milk and that they only make occasional on-farm sales to consumers.

The reason MDA and MDH obtained the search warrant was that the agencies suspected raw milk produced at the Hartmanns’ farm was responsible for three cases of illness from E. coli O157:H7.  When the officials were at the farm, they collected samples of various dairy products as well as fecal samples from the farm animals for testing.  According to an MDH press release issued the same day the warrant was executed, the department was investigating a cluster of four E. coli O157:H7 illnesses that all have the same DNA fingerprint, with three of the four cases reporting a link to raw milk from the Hartmann farm.  A subsequent MDH press release issued on June 3 stated, the “strong epidemiological link [to Hartmann Dairy] is now reinforced by the laboratory confirmation that the specific strain of E. coli O157:H7 found in the ill patients has also been found in multiple animals and at multiple sites on the Hartmann Farm.”  In a press release issued shortly afterwards on behalf of the Hartmanns, it was pointed out that MDH had not found the matching strain of E. coli O157:H7 in any of the food samples tested.

On June 16, MDA officials raided the Hartmann farm a second time.  By this date, MDA had concluded that eight people had become ill consuming the milk produced at the Hartmann farm.  This time the officials not only embargoed additional meat and dairy products but also issued the Hartmanns an order requiring them to stop the sale of all food products except eggs and poultry processed at a state-inspected plant.   The officials also ordered the Hartmanns to keep records on the “quantity and use date” of any of the embargoed food they removed for their personal consumption.   Overall, the agency issued the Hartmanns twenty-six (26) orders for the farmers to comply with, including one for the farm to register with the FDA as a ‘food facility’ per the federal Bioterrorism Act.  When the agents left the farm, they took financial and processing records as well as the Hartmanns’ computer hard drives.

The day before the second Hartmann raid, officials from MDA and the Minneapolis Health Department paid a visit to the Traditional Food Warehouse (TFW), a store featuring foods made by local small-scale producers that is open only to members of a private buying club.   After being in the store for about one and a half hours, the officials who were accompanied by a city policeman went to the store manager and informed him that either he could close the store on his own or the officials would do it for him.  Before the manager closed the door, one of the buying club members reminded him that he had the right not to answer any questions the officials asked him. One official asked to the see the member’s I.D.; when she refused, the official asked the policeman to request her I.D.  When the policeman asked for her I.D., she declined and left the store.  At that point, the MDA official in charge of the group asked another agency official present to take pictures of the member and her car as well as taking down her license plate number.

After the patrons had all left the store, the officials conducted an inspection and wound up embargoing every single food product in the store.  MDA left an inspection report with one of TFW’s owners which contained an order prohibiting the store owner from reopening until a license had been obtained from the Minneapolis Department of Health.  The question for MDA is:  why did the agency have to resort to this type of enforcement action and treat TFW like it was a criminal enterprise?  TFW had made no secret about its existence; since it opened in September 2008, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune has run two major stories on the warehouse.  It is not possible for MDA to have been unaware of it.  There had never been a complaint filed against the warehouse nor had there ever been any allegation that food purchased at the warehouse had made someone sick.  MDA could have made its position on the licensing issue known to the TFW owners without having to embargo every food product in the warehouse.

As uncalled for as was the MDA enforcement action against the Traditional Foods Warehouse, it pales in comparison to the action the department took against a family whose private residence in the Twin Cities area MDA discovered was being used as a distribution point for products from the Hartmann farm.  When MDA officials raided the Hartmanns’ on May 26, they obtained a list of drop sites for the distribution of the farm’s products that led them to obtain a criminal search warrant against the family.

The warrant stated,

. . . the Court finds probable cause exists for the issuance of a search warrant upon the following grounds:

1. The possession of, particularly the sale or distribution of raw, unpasteurized milk or milk products and the packaging or sale of other food products at a home, the property above-described constitutes a crime;
2. The property above-described constitutes evidence which tends to show a crime has been committed, or tends to show that a particular person has committed a crime.

The Court further finds that probable cause exists to believe that the above-described property and things are at the above-described premises.

On June 10 two MDA officials, two city government officials and three plain clothes policemen descended on the family’s residence.  Here is the wife’s account of the seven entering her home to execute the warrant:

A friend of our family’s daughter was married Wednesday night, June 9th.  We got to bed late and decided the boys could sleep in the next morning; we have three boys at home right now, ages 20, 17, and 14.  My husband and I, at about 7:15 a.m., received a call from our 4th son who lives out of town.  At 7:30 a.m., we went down to our sunroom or sanctuary, as we call it, to pray for the events of the day.  I proceeded to go back upstairs about 10 minutes to 8:00 to take a shower.

My husband, I was told later, met the seven unexpected visitors outside.  This woke up our youngest son.  He came into my bathroom to tell me that people were here from the State.  It must have been just a few minutes after 8 a.m. when I heard heavy footsteps coming up the stairway and down the hall.  With hair dripping wet, I threw on some clothes and was met at my bedroom door by my husband and two or three large men (these were plain clothes officers from the city police department.)  They allowed me to towel dry my hair, watching all the while.  The other officers went into my children’s bedrooms, waking them, telling them to get downstairs into the kitchen.

One of my sons asked if he could put on a shirt and one of the police officers responded, “Just get down to the kitchen.”  I walked downstairs and saw four people peering into my refrigerator (three women and one man: all of whom I had never seen before).  My husband explained who they were – the visitors took it from there and quickly introduced themselves.  Two from the Ag department; John gave me his card the girl didn’t have one.  Two from the city–names were rattled off so fast and only Lynn had a card.  I believe one police officer told me his name and that he was the person in charge; but I never received the other officers’ names.  They were in our home for over two hours.

The only thing the family did for the Hartmanns was to let someone from the farm park at their home so friends could conveniently stop by to pick up farm products.  The family neither handled money for the Hartmanns nor distributed any of their products.  Nothing produced by the Hartmanns was kept in the family’s refrigerators or freezers other than products for their own use.  The only other thing the family did for the food pick-up at their house was to buy food products at bulk discounts that they redistributed to their friends.  All products picked up at the residence were pre-ordered.

Before executing the search warrant, MDA had sent an official to interview four neighbors of the family who pick up food at the drop-site.  One neighbor who was interviewed called the wife and said she feared for her.

When the officials were conducting the search, they asked the family to give them product from the Hartmann farm that the department would test for E. coli O157: H7.  The family felt it had no choice and gave them a container of raw milk and a pound of hamburger.  The officials offered to pay for the food but the family refused to accept any money.

While the search was taking place, the wife repeatedly asked the officials if she were doing something wrong.  Their response was that it was wrong to let the Hartmanns use their driveway to distribute their products.  This was the “crime” that convinced a judge to issue a warrant so government officials could violate the sanctity and privacy of a home.

The official who has been the driving force behind these recent enforcement actions is John Mitterholzer, whose title is Food Standards Compliance Officer in the Dairy and Food Inspection Division of MDA.  Mitterholzer was the official who was in charge of the “inspection” at the Traditional Foods Warehouse and the search of the private residence.  He is a long-time nemesis of the Hartmanns.  Mitterholzer led an enforcement action against the Hartmanns that turned into a case that went all the way up to the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2005.

The Minnesota State Constitution has a provision which states, “any person may sell or peddle the products of the farm or garden occupied and cultivated by him without obtaining a license therefor.”  Until the Hartmann case, the MDA had interpreted this provision to cover only the sale of produce.  The Supreme Court disagreed and held that the Hartmanns could sell meat from animals raised on their farm.  Moreover, the Court ruled that “the language of the provision extends its protection to all products; the only limitation is that the farm or garden must be occupied and cultivated by the seller.”  In attempting to crack down on the off-farm distribution of raw milk, MDA is relying on a statute in the state dairy code which provides that raw milk and cream can only be “occasionally secured or purchased for personal use by any consumer at the place or farm where the milk is produced.”  The statute, however, is written from the standpoint of the consumer, not the farmer.  The provision in the state constitution has no limitation on how much can be sold nor on where the sales can take place.

It is crucial that the constitutional provision be upheld.  The farms of most raw milk producers are fifty to a hundred miles away from the Twin Cities.  Their sales would suffer significantly if raw milk could not be delivered in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area.  MDA should respect the right of farmers and consumers to enter into agreements on the distribution and delivery of raw milk and other farm products.  The agency has used the E. coli outbreak blamed on the Hartmann farm as a pretext to carry out heavy-handed enforcement tactics that have created a climate of fear among raw milk producers and consumers.  MDA has been treating people who are upstanding citizens in their community like common criminals.  Even as this article was being written, another farm was raided.  MDA’s inquisition needs to end.

Source: farmtoconsumer.org

By Raine Saunders

Are you a person who believes low-fat foods are healthier than those with fat in them? Have you ever starved yourself or limited your calories thinking that if you did this, you would lose weight? It has become a common misconception that if people eat low calorie and fat-free foods they should be able to lose weight because they are eating less fat.

Although in theory, this sounds like a logical conclusion, nothing could be further from the truth! With that idea in mind, have you ever wondered whether the food in your kitchen that reflects those ideas is healthy to eat? It can be confusing to try and sift through all the information available on food and nutrition. So much is available. How do you know what to believe? Don’t worry, I’ll answer this question later on in this post.

Right now, let’s go over some of the most common myths about nutrition as well as detailed explanations as to why those are untrue.

Here’s a short quiz you can take to determine how nutritionally aware you are about the foods in your kitchen:

• Do you eat low-fat or non-fat foods?

• Do you count calories?

• Do you believe “lean meats” are healthy to eat?

• Do you believe red meat is not healthy to eat?

• Do you believe saturated fats and cholesterol are bad for your heart?

• Do you eat soy products because you’ve been told they are health foods?

• Do you maintain a vegan diet?

• Do you eat boxed cereals because the labels read “low-fat”, or “high-fiber”, “all-natural” or “no sugar added”?

• Do you believe eggs and butter are bad for your health?

• Do you choose vegetable oils because you have been told they are healthy to consume (canola, cottonseed, corn, and safflower oils)?

• Do you take synthetic vitamin/mineral/dietary supplements to “fill in the gaps”?

• Do you pay no attention to organic, sustainable, antibiotic/hormone/spray/pesticide-free meats and produce because conventional is “cheaper” and “it doesn’t really make a difference”?

• Do you buy processed foods such as enriched breads, crackers, cereals, bagels, English Muffins, pretzels, rice cakes, tortillas, croissants because you believe they are low-fat and healthy?

• Do you eat highly-processed lunch meats, sausages, hot dogs and other similar items?

• Do you eat products containing hydrolyzed proteins or protein powder?

• Do you buy “food” and “protein” bars and powdered drink products because you believe they are an acceptable substitute for a real, balanced meal?

• Do you believe that raw milk is unsafe to drink, and pasteurized is superior?

• Do you buy factory-produced eggs and industrially-produced meat?

• Believe salt is bad for your health?

If you answered no to most of these, hopefully you are on the right track!

If you answer yes to more than 2 of these questions, it might be time to re-evaluate what you are keeping in your cupboards and refrigerator.

Here are some things you may not know about the food you eat:

• Fats and cholesterol are healthy and necessary for your health. All humans need real, unadulterated fats in their diets. Fats contain some of the most necessary nutrients and enzymes for us to maintain all types of bodily functions – even more than many vegetables, believe it or not!

• Butter is good for you! A slice of real butter is delicious, filling, and provides Vitamins A & D, and K, and also Omega 3 essential fatty acids – especially butter from healthy cows on pasture.

• The kind of meat you eat is important – learn the differences between conventional and sustainable-raised, grass-fed meats. Conventional meat is really the culprit of many of our health problems.  Animals in conventional environments are usually fed grain, soy. These animals are not made to eat these substances – but should be eating grass instead. As a result, animals become ill and often develop the pathogenic variety of E. coli and other diseases, are administered antibiotics to keep them from getting sick, are given growth hormones to make sure they grow fast enough to turn a profit quicker. The balance of Omega 6s to Omega 3s in conventional meat is grossly out of balance, and eating this kind of meat causes degenerative disease over time.

• As a rule, supplements don’t replace healthy eating.

• Remember when grandma used to give you cod liver oil?  Cod liver oil with butter oil is really good for you, and is an important source of Vitamins A , B, C, & D. Cod liver oil with butter oil contains the important Vitamin K that is so lacking in much of our diets. Fermented cod liver oil is the best type of this oil to consume.  

• Sprouted, soaked, and fermented grains, nuts, and seeds are more digestible to the human body. Have you ever stopped to wonder why there are so many grain and food allergies, and why obesity, heart disease, and other illnesses are so prevalent? In modern times, the grains most of us consume are processed and extruded. Extrusion involves grains being forced through a very small hole in a machine and subjected to extremely high temperatures, which damages the grain. For thousands and thousands of years, our ancestors prepared grains by soaking and sprouting to increase the digestibility of these foods.  When eaten in moderation and properly prepared, grains, nuts and seeds can be a part of a truly healthy diet.

• Eating healthy doesn’t have to cost an arm and a leg.

• Cheap food is not really cheap – cheap foods are full of chemicals and toxins, and are not really food – so you can eat it all day and not be full.  We are seeing more and more of these foods on recall lists every day. Eating these kinds of foods will actually result in a net deficiency of nutrients stored in your body. In the end, you will spend more money for less food, and then you will pay in health costs later.

• The Food Pyramid (designed by the USDA) actually tells us to eat the wrong foods!

• The most unhealthy oils to consume are those that are the cheapest (such as canola, cottonseed, and soybean) – and you will find these everywhere you look : in grocery stores, restaurants, and in processed foods everywhere.

• The healthiest oils are virgin and extra-virgin olive oil, coconut oil, and palm oils from a sustainable-source.

• Soy is not a health food unless it is in fermented form. Ninety percent or more of soy sold on the market is highly-processed, industrial waste – and beyond that can cause severe disruptions in the body in the reproductive, digestive, endocrine, nervous, and cardiovascular systems. Soy milk, cheese, fake meats, most tofu and soy sauces, soy “mayonnaise”, and soy filler ingredients you will find on the market are not good for your health, despite the claims made by food companies on labels. Natto, tempeh, and miso that are naturally fermented are good choices for health.

• Table salt is an industrial waste product – the heating process during refinement takes temperatures upward toward 1200 degrees in processing, which destroys the majority of naturally-occurring elements. Mostly comprised of sodium chloride and no more than one or two other elements, table salt is toxic to our bodies. Unrefined sea salt has a balance of trace minerals our bodies need, which we currently don’t get from many of the foods we eat. Because conventional farming methods destroy our soil and mineral levels, the earth becomes depleted of many important nutrients that would otherwise greatly improve the nutritional content of foods that are grown (produce, grains, legumes, etc.) and raised to graze (animals for meat and meat products). The best choice is a good quality unrefined sea salt.

Overwhelmed? Confused? You are not alone!

Modern food processing methods remove nutrients from foods and denature them so that our bodies cannot recognize those substances. Modern food processing uses heat, pressure, and industrially-produced oils and fats to make foods more convenient and easier to package and sell. If your digestive system cannot absorb something, it will have a difficult time delivering something nutritious that will actually do your body benefit. What’s more, these foods can actually increase the toxin load and deplete existing nutrients, which cause long-term health problems.

Remember at the beginning of this post – I asked a very important question - how do you know what to believe?

When you aren’t sure, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if your grandmother doesn’t know what it is, you probably shouldn’t be eating it!  People have eaten real, traditional foods for thousands of years and survived very well.

It’s only been in the last 160 years or so that human beings have developed processing and automation to mass produce packaged foods. And yet since that time, disease rates and illnesses have changed considerably. For example, our records in the study of heart disease show that death from heart problems was a rare occurrence in pre-industrial societies.

Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution (19th century), the incidence of heart disease began to increase sharply, and since then more people have died from heart-related disease.  If you are a person that needs statistical data to be convinced, just take a look at this graph of statistics on heart disease from Google showing heart disease rates since the 1860s to now. It’s quite startling to see the change in this disease since that time on this graph.

Source: AgricultureSociety.com

By Karen Keb

A dairy cow provides lots of practical benefits. Perhaps the most notable is that cows eating a grass-based diet can provide great-tasting dairy products that are more nutritious and flavorful than those you can buy in most grocery stores. Raising a family dairy cow is a fun experience, plus it’s a great step toward self-sufficiency and food security. Surplus dairy products from the cow and meat from calves could even bring in extra income for your family. Keeping a homestead dairy cow is a big commitment though, so you’ll want to prepare carefully.

The Daily Dairy Cow Routine

A cow produces milk in order to feed her calf. After the cow has given birth, she must be milked (or her calf allowed to nurse) at least twice daily or the milk will stop flowing. Count on about nine to 10 months of milk production, allowing the cow to rest at least two months before a new calf is born. Your daily routine will consist of feeding, milking twice a day or milking once a day and separating the calf from the cow eight to 12 hours before you milk. (Keep reading for more details.) You will also need to muck out the milking area frequently and move fences for rotational grazing as needed.

Feeding. A dairy cow needs two principal components in her diet to be healthy: roughage and protein. Roughage mainly consists of cellulose and can be supplied by pasture and various forms of hay. Good grass hay and grass pasture can contain sufficient protein for animal maintenance, but for a lactating dairy cow, higher protein feeds such as alfalfa hay, grass-legume pasture or protein supplements will increase milk production. She’ll also need a mineral supplement and salt, and a lactating cow can drink up to 30 gallons of water per day, so you’ll need to provide plenty of fresh water.

In winter when the pasture is sparse, good hay — and possibly additional grain or premixed feed — will be necessary. If you can feed leafy alfalfa hay (2 to 3 pounds per 100 pounds of body weight), this will be all she needs. However, if you want to increase the cow’s milk production, feed a grain supplement in the form of chopped or ground oats, barley, corn or wheat every day, regardless of season.

During the summer, the cow can get all the nutrients and protein she needs from grazing a lush pasture consisting of legumes and grasses. In many regions, a cow and calf will need at least an acre of good pasture. In regions with poor soil or little rain, 10 acres or more may be necessary to support the pair.

Milking. Ideally, milking should be timed at 12-hour intervals. A cow with a full, distended udder is not a happy cow; don’t inflict this on her by milking erratically. With the family cow, you have the option of milking just once a day by letting the calf help you out. Leave the calf with the cow overnight. Separate them in the morning, and by evening, the cow will be ready for milking (this approach lets you avoid early morning milkings if you have an 8-to-5 job). Using this system, the calf may nurse beyond normal weaning periods (about eight weeks for most dairy calves), and you won’t need to mess around with the bottle feeding that would be required if you were milking twice a day and feeding some to the calf.

Dairy breeds can produce up to 8 gallons per day, although 3 gallons is more typical for a family dairy cow on a grass-only diet. The calf only needs about 5 quarts to 2 gallons per day if it has access to good pasture as it grows. You can assume the calf will drink half the cow’s daily production if you keep the two together about 12 hours a day.

Washing the cow’s udder before milking will help relax her. Equipment (and your hands) should be scrupulously clean, too. Several books, websites and online videos explain the process of hand milking a cow.

After you’ve got the milk in a bucket, you will need to quickly strain it to remove debris and cool it to limit bacteria growth. To strain the milk, you can purchase a commercial milk strainer and paper filters, or pour the milk through four layers of dish towels or cheesecloth over a large colander and bowl.

If you prefer to pasteurize milk, do this after straining, but before cooling. The easiest method is to use a home milk-pasteurizer machine. These machines can be purchased for about $300 for a 2-gallon unit. For an easy stovetop method, read How do I pasteurize raw milk at home? 

Breeding and Birth

Soon after giving birth to her first calf, your cow will need to be bred. She will “freshen” (have a calf and start producing milk) about nine and a half months from the date she “settles” (gets pregnant); her second heat after calving is an ideal time to breed her. For the strongest calves, time the birth when spring pastures are lush. You will be milking (and her calf may be nursing) until the last two or three months before the cow gives birth. At that time she’ll need to be “dried up” (stop being milked) to allow her body to prepare for her new calf.

You don’t need to own a bull to breed your cow. Your options include taking your cow to a bull for breeding or artificial insemination (AI). The easiest method will undoubtedly be AI, unless your neighbor just happens to have a suitable bull and you can walk your cow over for a visit. You can hire an AI technician to do the job, or take a course and do it yourself. Another breeding option is to raise or buy a yearling beef-breed bull and have it processed after your cow is bred.

If you intend to raise your calf for beef, breed your cow to a smaller beef-type bull, such as an Angus. Either way, you’ll want to select a bull that roughly matches the size of your cow — anything larger and she may have trouble birthing a large calf. Dairy breeds usually calve easily, but make sure you’re prepared for problems.

If you want homegrown, grass-fed beef, you can raise the calf until it reaches appropriate slaughter weight (typically about 1,200 pounds, but smaller if you prefer) at about 2 years old, and take it to a processor who will butcher and package the beef for you. You can also sell or give away the calf as a bottle baby for a local 4-H project.

Fencing and Facilities

Although you could tether your cow to a stake and move it daily, it’s a bit risky for the cow. She could get tangled in the rope and be injured. If you can keep an eye on her most of the day while she’s tethered, it might be worthwhile so you won’t have to invest in fencing. Usually, building a perimeter fence is the best option.

The best way to keep cattle on grass is with a rotational grazing system. This process involves dividing pastures into small paddocks and controlling the cow’s access to fresh grass, often using an electric fence that you move every few days. Lush grass grows back in the recently grazed pasture while the cow is grazing a fresh section.

For interior fences and paddock dividers, one strand of electrified high-tensile wire works effectively on cattle that are trained to respect electric fences. But if you plan to raise calves in those same paddocks, two or three wires will be more effective.

Dairy cows require modest shelter against cold winds and rain or snow. A simple shelter can be constructed from recycled materials such as old telephone poles, plywood and corrugated metal.

An outbuilding with a concrete floor that can be kept relatively clean and sanitary is ideal for milking. You can halter and tie your cow to a vertical post if she’s gentle, or use a stanchion to restrain her. Especially gentle and experienced cows can be milked standing in the field.

Get Your Dairy Cow

A cow of any good dual-purpose breed (Dexter, Red Poll, Milking Shorthorn, Randall Lineback or others) will produce a good beef calf, provide it with enough milk, and produce more than enough milk for most families’ needs. Veterinarian D. Phillip Sponenberg says, “For home dairy use, a number of the heritage breeds make a lot of sense. They thrive on average pasture and produce plenty of milk for home use, and owners with even a single cow can make real and important contributions to the conservation of these genetic treasures that we may well need for future agricultural needs.” (For more on heritage-breed cows, check out the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy.)

Ask around in your circle of rural friends, the local extension office or farm stores for advice on finding cows for sale in your area. You might find your cow or cow/calf pair at a local dairy farm, or check Craigslist. If you don’t have experience with cattle, try to buy an older cow with a placid nature.

If you have a knowledgeable neighbor or friend, take her or him with you when looking at a cow that’s for sale. Before buying, do a visual inspection and ask lots of questions: How old is she and how many seasons has she been milked? Has she been hand-milked or machine-milked? Do you have proof that the cow is tuberculosis and brucellosis-free? Has she had calving problems? Does she have any health or behavior problems? If possible, milk her yourself or watch her being milked and examine the milk for signs of mastitis: stringy milk, clots or blood.

If you want a particular breed, check the classified ads in rural-lifestyle and farming magazines, or go to that particular breed’s association website and locate a breeder within a reasonable distance.

Annual Budget for Keeping a Family Cow

There are lots of variables in a budget for a family milk cow, but after you own the cow, have summer pasture, install the fence, and have basic equipment, the primary cost on an annual basis will be for feed. Bull rental (or semen), vet bills and supplements are also variable costs. But the one-year estimates below show that keeping a cow can save you money compared to buying milk and meat at retail prices.

You can “stockpile” some of the pasture, saving it for winter grazing, but to maintain health and production, you’ll usually need to supplement the cow’s diet with high-quality hay when grass isn’t growing.

Calves raised for beef are usually slaughtered at about 2 years old when they’re approaching 1,200 pounds. But you can take advantage of summer pasture, and make or buy less hay, if you butcher the calf right before winter, when the calf is about a year and a half old and probably about 700 pounds.

Cost of alfalfa hay: $810
Assumes 42.5 lbs. x 200 days; $190 per ton in small, square bales

Value of milk available for human consumption: $3,000 to $5,215
3.5 gal. x 270 days = 945 gal.; bottle-fed calf drinks 200 gallons in about two months before weaning; net 745 gal. at $7/gal., compares to premium, locally produced milk. Even with a more conservative $4/gal., the value of milk would be about $3,000. If you milk only once a day and allow the calf to nurse instead of feeding it with a bottle, the calf will drink more milk daily and can be weaned when it’s 8 or 9 months old. In this situation, you could expect about 470 gal. of milk for human consumption.

Value of grass-fed meat: $1,575
700 lb. calf at 18 months old, producing 350 pounds of meat at $4.50/lb.

Annual value: $3,765 to $5,980

Source: Mother Earth News

Are raw, living foods sourced from safe local producers better for your health and immune systems than processed, genetically modified, pasteurized, homogenized, or irradiated foods?

Do you have a right to decide for yourself, and to choose healthy, raw, nutritious, natural foods from local growers and purveyors?

Take raw milk as an example. Since California established the nation’s most stringent raw milk standards, more and more people are consuming raw dairy products. Many of those people tout what they view as raw milk’s beneficial properties. They claim that raw milk and cultured raw dairy products help to relieve symptoms of allergies, asthma, arthritis, and other digestive issues, including symptoms of celiac disease.

Speaking from my own experience, after switching to raw dairy about six months ago, my hay fever has disappeared, my nose is never stuffed up any more, my stomach loves me, and I have never felt better. Moreover, my nephew suffers from classic milk allergy. If he drinks milk, his mouth swells up and he has to take an antihistamine. Recently, after witnessing the disappearance of my own allergies, and after reading that raw milk is hypoallergenic, we took the plunge and had him drink a glass. mom anxiously waited to see if he would have an allergic reaction. He had none. Nothing. Felt fine. Since then, I’ve been treated like the wise uncle. But enough of my story.

Raw milk is also rich in natural probiotics such as bifidobacteria, which along with prebiotics, have been shown to reduce inflammation and lessen symptoms in people with celiac disease and associated inflammatory conditions.

For example, a team of European researchers recently demonstrated that dietary probiotics and prebiotics can improve quality of life for people with celiac and associated conditions, such as type 1 diabetes and some autoimmune disorders. Their results offer some of the strongest support for the idea that eating foods rich in probiotics and/or prebiotics, such as raw milk, yogurt, and kefir can help a number of patients with celiac disease reduce inflammation and lessen symptoms of celiac disease.

However, the rights of consumers to access foods on their own terms are under assault from powerful agribusiness and food manufacturers through their influence over the FDA. The Farm-to-consumer legal defense fund summarizes the FDA position on consumer food rights as follows:

*Consumers have no absolute right to any raw unprocessed food, unless the FDA says it’s okay

*There’s no right to good health, except as approved by the FDA

*There’s no right for citizens to contract privately for their food

That’s right, according to the FDA, we have no right to contract with a farmer to grow or produce food outside of FDA approval and control. Approval and control that is heavily influenced by major industrial producers.

These and other issues regarding raw milk and other raw foods are the subject of a recentMercola.com interview with Mark A. McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy. McAfee was instrumental in resisting attempts by big dairy interests to prohibit raw milk, and in pushing lawmakers to establish the nation’s highest raw milk standards here in California. The article talks about the quality and standards for raw milk, and instructs consumers in what to look for when searching out raw dairy products.

A growing number of people who believe that raw, living foods provide health and immune benefits are organizing to fight what many regard as an assault on the commercial viability of these foods and their producers by major food manufacturers.

Many people who currently enjoy access to raw, living, biodynamic foods from local, sustainable growers and purveyors are concerned about what they see as an FDA that is using laws targeted at major manufacturers to obstruct, restrict, and prohibit small farmers and food purveyors, especially of raw, living, natural foods such as dairy, almonds, juices, eggs, etc.

Regarding raw milk, McAfee points out that only six states presently permit the retail sale of raw milk: California, Connecticut, Maine, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Arizona. However, it’s important to realize that each state sets their own standards. California, specifically, has its own special set of standards for raw milk for human consumption, in which farmers must meet or exceed pasteurized milk standards, without pasteurizing.

You can find raw milk retailers in California by using the store locator available at Organic Pastures.  For other areas, check out the Campaign for Real Milk Web site. You can also look here to find out the legal status of raw milk in the U.S. state or country where you live.

Bay Area consumers may buy raw dairy and other probiotic, biodynamic foods at: Rainbow Grocery;Falletti’s; Molly Stone’s; Berkeley Bowl; and The Foodmill in Oakland.

People who want to learn more about the campaign for raw milk access may read about it at RealMilk.com, or OrganicPastures.com:

Consumers may learn more about supporting farm to consumer foods, including raw milk by accessing the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund.

Source: Examiner.com

A judge is moving to the appellate level a case brought against a Wisconsin man by government officials demanding he provide names of friends who may buy or sell raw milk.

The threat against raw-milk activist Max Kane had been the possibility of being ruled in contempt of court for his refusal to provide the information to authorities, according to a report from an advocacy organization.

The dispute over the sale of raw milk by farmers directly to consumers has erupted in several locations in recent months in the United States and Canada. Proponents argue raw milk is healthier, and since it usually is a direct producer-to-consumer transaction the government has no interest in those deals.

Governments argue they do.

Now, according to a report from the Weston A. Price Foundation, which advocates for raw-milk farmers and consumers, Judge Michael Rosenborough denied a motion by the state of Wisconsin to compel Kane to reveal the names of farmers and consumers he believes could be producing or purchasing raw milk.

The report said Kane has lived since December under a court order to deliver the names to the state’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. A month ago, Kane, helped by attorney Elizabeth Rich, requested a stay of the order in the Vernon County Court in Viroqua, Wis., to take the case to appeal.

The judge now has agreed.

Already, on four occasions, state attorneys have tried to extract the names from Kane. The issue is that while “incidental” sales of milk from farmers to consumers are legal in Wisconsin, the agency has decided that an “incidental” sale is one time, making any customer and farmer who agreed to a second transaction in violation of the law.

Kane’s appeal currently is pending.

The Weston A. Price Foundation, which is among the nonprofits that educate consumers about more natural food-production methods, said demand for such products is growing.

“Raw milk … is a supremely healthy food that should be available to those who want it,” said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the foundation.

WND reported earlier when U.S. Food and Drug Administration agents demanded to inspect a Pennsylvania farm described by its owner as private, arguing, “You have cows. You produce food for human consumption.”

The confrontation developed at a farm near Kinzers, Pa., belonging to Amish farmer Dan Allgyer.

According to a report from the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, agents Joshua Schafer and Deborah Haney drove past a “No Trespassing” sign and informed Allgyer they were there to inspect his farm.

Allgyer confirmed his was a private farm.

Weeks earlier there was a court victory in Canada in which Michael Schmidt was found not guilty of accusations he sold raw milk to members of a cow-sharing consortium.

According to natural-foods blogger Kimberly Hartke, the judge “found that Michael had done his due diligence, developed a proper contract, and that everyone was informed. The judge went on to say that Michael met a need for the people.”

And in a previous U.S. case, Mennonite farmer Mark Nolt of Maryland had his farm raided by SWAT-type agents. He was fined more than $4,000 and had his equipment confiscated for providing raw – or unpasteurized – milk to participants in his program.

Source: WND

Dairy farming is key factor in history of European nutrition, study argues, with Roman empire a net loss

The Romans, as Monty Python famously acknowledged, have done many things for us. Contrary to popular wisdom, however, improving our diet was not one of them.

A study of the remains of almost 20,000 people dating from the 8th century BC to the 18th century AD has found that the Roman empire reduced our level of nutrition, which increased again in the “dark ages”.

That is because the key factor in determining average height over the centuries – an indicator of nutritional status and wellbeing – has been an increase in milk consumption due to improved farming. Higher population densities and the need to feed the army during Roman times may have worked against this.

The “anthropometric” approach pursued by Nikola Koepke of Oxford University, which combines biology and archaeology, suggests longer bone length is indicative of improved diet. Koepke’s study, presented at the Economic History Society’s 2010 annual conference, also challenges assumptions about the effect of the industrial revolution. Urbanisation did not improve wellbeing, she argues, at least as measured by height.

Rather, Koepke says, the key factor in determining average height growth over the past 2,500 years has been the increased consumption of milk as a result of the spread of, and improvements in, farming. She found that overall European living conditions improved slightly in the past 2,500 years even in the centuries prior to the industrial revolution.

Her study is based on data compiled from analysing the skeletal remains of more than 18,500 individuals of both genders from all social classes, from 484 European archaeological dig sites. “Higher milk consumption as indicated by cattle share had a positive impact on mean height,” Koepke writes. “Correspondingly, this determinant is the key factor in causing significant European regional differences in mean height.”

Source: Guardian UK