{Editor’s Note: This is the 2nd installment in a series of articles attempting to address the 32 questions posed by Ron Paul in his recent farewell speech given in front of Congress. Check out the first installment, "Why Are Sick People Who Use Medical Marijuana Put In Prison?"}Raw Milk, and the consumer's right to drink it has been a hotly debated topic in recent years. Across the country, Raw Milk (and other raw dairy products) have various degrees of legality, stemming from a 1987 decree, damning raw milk by the FDA. The color-coded map embedded provided a good snapshot and breakdown of exactly where raw milk is available and what restrictions are placed upon it. There are various health concerns and also health benefits that the two sides bring to the table in the debate over raw milk, but insofar as we're concerned they are immaterial, as this boils down to a bigger concern: the government telling its citizens what they can or can't eat.To provide some background on raw milk, I'll quote my own previous story:

Proponents of fresh or “raw” milk cite that the milk provides improved nutrients for the immune system, stronger bones and teeth, etc, and feel that pasteurized milk removes some of the health benefits. While the pasteurization process removes the risk of infection, the debate rages on as to whether it also removes these other benefits along with it.  Long story short, the government should not be able to prohibit the sale of raw milk to those who prefer it because they feel that their version is “safer,” when grown adults who know the risks and (presumably) rewards and have made their own decision. Especially in a time when globally, humanity is in danger of running out of effective antibiotics, the choice to provide ones children with milk from cows that haven’t been treated with hormones or antibiotics, with milk that is unpasteurized could be a boon.

So why does the government restrict the sale of raw milk? Those who argue against raw milk cite that the risks for infection from contaminated milk sources are much higher. This article quotes the CDC (who I have my own issues with), who claim that:

... "there were 86 reported food poisoning outbreaks from raw milk between 1998 and 2008, resulting in 1,676 illnesses, 191 hospitalizations, and two deaths. Raw milk is responsible for nearly three times more hospitalizations than any other foodborne disease outbreak," says Hannah Gould, Ph.D., senior epidemiologist with the CDC's Enteric Diseases Epidemiology Branch.

So from a statistical standpoint raw milk presents a far higher chance of serious infection than its pasteurized brother, however that risk assessment is up to an individual to discern in many states. More serious problems arise, however, for farmers that violate Federal laws governing interstate commerce. Federally, raw milk is illegal to sell for human consumption across state lines. This is because the FDA and CDC consider it a dangerous candidate for infection on a Federal level, and even though they can't enforce states to comply, they can restrict and police it in this way. Previously the government stated it would attempt to arrest citizens who transported raw milk for personal consumption, but recently backed off that liberty-infringing practice. However, raids and arrests have been undertaken by the government against farmers who sell raw milk to consumers across state lines, including one which Ron Paul himself had championed - Rainbow Farms, an Amish farm forced out of business. The federal government (and some states) has deemed raw milk a danger to us all, even though it presents a miniscule speck in the overall spectrum of illness and disease. It has shown that it will spend millions of dollars to combat a personal right to choose a preference that goes against prescribed methods, even though it infringes on personal liberty. There are organizations fighting this on an ongoing basis, with various victories and setbacks. A good article on this from Reason Magazine can be found here. However, there have been setbacks that are truly mind boggling, including this Wisconsin case in which a judge ruled against the very basic rights and liberties of individuals.

On September 9, Judge Fiedler issued his  decision on the motion, stating that the court's August 12 denial of plaintiffs' motion for judgment meant the following:(1) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;(2) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;(3) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to board their cow at the farm of a farmer;(4) The Zinniker Plaintiffs' private contract does not fall outside the scope of the States' police power;(5) Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice;

I have no idea what the judge was smoking during that ruling...but it probably just became legal in Colorado.Receive access to ALL of our EXCLUSIVE bonus audio content – including “Conspiracy Corner”, “Degenerate Gamblers” and the “League of Liberty Podcast” by joining the Lions of Liberty Pride and supporting us on Patreon!