Miller Farms fined

[Josh]

e citing a 21 year old FDA document from the first term of the George W Bush Administration to make your argument about FDA policy being against raw milk?

The fact of the matter is that there are raw milk producers all over the place in this country. And where they are lacking it is entirely due to state regulations, not the FDA. Here in Washington it is perfectly legal to sell raw milk provided that it is properly labeled and the producer is licensed (which means they are subject to inspections and regulation). In fact, the produce grocery store I pass by every day on the way to work has raw milk and raw milk products. And they also have raw goat milk: https://chucksproduce.com/ The FDA isn't curtailing it or intervening.

The reason they can't is because they lost, despite lots of pressure to try to completely ban raw milk. People who wanted to continue consuming it pushed back.

The reason it's available at all is because of pushback from people who are, frankly, a bit fringe, such as Miller.

[Ken]

e citing a 21 year old FDA document from the first term of the George W Bush Administration to make your argument about FDA policy being against raw milk?

The fact of the matter is that there are raw milk producers all over the place in this country. And where they are lacking it is entirely due to state regulations, not the FDA. Here in Washington it is perfectly legal to sell raw milk provided that it is properly labeled and the producer is licensed (which means they are subject to inspections and regulation). In fact, the produce grocery store I pass by every day on the way to work has raw milk and raw milk products. And they also have raw goat milk: https://chucksproduce.com/ The FDA isn't curtailing it or intervening.

The reason they can't is because they lost, despite lots of pressure to try to completely ban raw milk. People who wanted to continue consuming it pushed back.

The reason it's available at all is because of pushback from people who are, frankly, a bit fringe, such as Miller.

Yes, that's how democracy works.

Here in Washington, raw milk has been legal since 1949. The laws were tightened up after there was an outbreak of listeria or salmonella from an unlicensed dairy in 2005 that sickened several dozen people. So they tightened up the licensing and inspection program. But it is still perfectly legal and available at most health food and co-op type grocery stores.

We have federalism. Every state can do their own thing. Just like Washington also prohibits employment discrimination for using cannabis on your own time.

[JohnHurt]

Seriously John:

If you want to argue that: (1) States don't have jurisdiction to regulate food safety and that (2) the Federal government doesn't have authority to regulate interstate commerce as well as the health and welfare of Americans, then go for it.

But don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously.

And PS, there are thousands of places you can buy raw milk in this country legally. The raw milk supply won't be dented if Miller decides to blow up his business instead of allowing state inspections.

The question has to do with Private Membership Associations.

[JohnHurt]

What Is A Properly Formed PMA?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-pro ... id-edwards

David Edwards
President at PMA Power
Published May 24, 2019
+ Follow
A PMA is simply a form of a Private Association. These are commonly known as a Private Association, Health Association, or Private Membership Association.

A Private Membership Association (“PMA”) is men and woman collectively asserting and standing upon their rights to determine what devices, products, procedures, or services will be used by them to maintain the health of their own body, mind or spirit; and Men and women collectively asserting and standing upon their right to Provide and share, legal and lawful services, procedures, advice, counsel, tips and any other information or services which may be deemed beneficial to Association members and freely share, discuss, and obtain, exchange, view and/or use information and services by members of the Association, and the right to determine for ourselves which products, services, tips, advice, and counsel is most beneficial to us without the information being censored through regulation or restriction upon these rights.

A PMA is like a private family (PMA creator = the head of the family; PMA members = family members). Just like in a close family, what is communicated or happens inside a family’s private home, among only family members are private matters generally immune from and not subject to censorship/control by any administrative agency of any government.

PMAs have an established history and maintain a significant and unique standing in law; they are generally immune from most, if not all, state and federal Public Laws. The exception would be if the activities of the association present a "clear and present danger of a substantial evil".

Why are they immune from public laws? They are private, not public. The ability to form a PMA and the protections afforded by a properly formed PMA seem to be new information to many people but they are not a new concept. You have the right to assemble and to associate. That right has always been there. Private Membership Associations have been around for a very long time.

NOTE: The level of protections will always be determined by your founding documents. If your association is properly formed, the establishing documents will define who has the authority to determine all matters of association business and which tribunals and authorities have the jurisdiction to get involved. This will always be determined by the founder or their appointees. If the founding documents, including the articles of association, are created in statutory compliance the courts maintain their jurisdiction, even if that jurisdiction is limited.

It's PMA-Power’s opinion that the courts should always be kept out of association business but most associations, within their founding documents, either include submitting to the statutes of the laws of the State, or are filed under the authority of the state (such as the Secretary of State).

What are some examples of a Private Membership Association?

Drinking is allowed inside “private clubs” in “dry counties” in states of The United States of America where the sale of alcohol to the public is restricted or illegal; smoking is allowed inside “cigar bars” or "private clubs" in states having public laws prohibiting smoking in government buildings and in buildings open to the public; membership is restricted and only private rules apply inside private golf, baseball, football, soccer and other sports clubs; Men’s, Women’s, Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs; the Cub, Brownie, Boy and Girl Scouts of America; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.); the American Medical Association; and, even the local, state and federal BAR Associations, all of which are various forms of a PMA, generally follow only their own rules, not public law.

If they have these protections in place, shouldn't we? The biggest part of the case law that keeps the government restriction and intrusion out of your business comes from court decisions starting in the 1950's and 1960's. Prior to that, there wasn't much effort on the part of government to over step their boundaries when it comes to a private association so there wasn't a need to involve the courts. Since that time, there have been very few cases of government being able to successfully challenge the operation of a PMA and the few that fall into that category were only successful because the PMA was formed in statutory compliance giving government the authority to intervene from the founding of the association.

The protections of a Properly Established Private Association have been known, and widely used, throughout the natural healthcare industry for a long time but most people never had a need to know about it.

I never saw where the Pennsylvania Dept of Agriculture argued that Miller was not a Private Membership Association (PMA). So I don't think that is the issue.

Then if Miller is a legitimate PMA, it looks like an open and shut case, and the PA Dept of Ag has already lost. So I don't think that is the issue.

But, if the PA Dept of Ag is challenging the right of all Private Membership Associations to act in private, then that would make sense why Robert Barnes and thousands of people outside PA are interested and supporting Miller in this case. What happens to Miller could affect all PMAs. And that explains why Miller won't buckle under pressure, and why the PA Dept of Ag is determined to break Miller.

So it is more than just selling raw milk. They want the power to regulate all PMAs.

Being a Private Membership Association, acting in private with private members, is the real issue.

[Ken]

What Is A Properly Formed PMA?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-pro ... id-edwards

David Edwards
President at PMA Power
Published May 24, 2019
+ Follow
A PMA is simply a form of a Private Association. These are commonly known as a Private Association, Health Association, or Private Membership Association.

A Private Membership Association (“PMA”) is men and woman collectively asserting and standing upon their rights to determine what devices, products, procedures, or services will be used by them to maintain the health of their own body, mind or spirit; and Men and women collectively asserting and standing upon their right to Provide and share, legal and lawful services, procedures, advice, counsel, tips and any other information or services which may be deemed beneficial to Association members and freely share, discuss, and obtain, exchange, view and/or use information and services by members of the Association, and the right to determine for ourselves which products, services, tips, advice, and counsel is most beneficial to us without the information being censored through regulation or restriction upon these rights.

A PMA is like a private family (PMA creator = the head of the family; PMA members = family members). Just like in a close family, what is communicated or happens inside a family’s private home, among only family members are private matters generally immune from and not subject to censorship/control by any administrative agency of any government.

PMAs have an established history and maintain a significant and unique standing in law; they are generally immune from most, if not all, state and federal Public Laws. The exception would be if the activities of the association present a "clear and present danger of a substantial evil".

Why are they immune from public laws? They are private, not public. The ability to form a PMA and the protections afforded by a properly formed PMA seem to be new information to many people but they are not a new concept. You have the right to assemble and to associate. That right has always been there. Private Membership Associations have been around for a very long time.

NOTE: The level of protections will always be determined by your founding documents. If your association is properly formed, the establishing documents will define who has the authority to determine all matters of association business and which tribunals and authorities have the jurisdiction to get involved. This will always be determined by the founder or their appointees. If the founding documents, including the articles of association, are created in statutory compliance the courts maintain their jurisdiction, even if that jurisdiction is limited.

It's PMA-Power’s opinion that the courts should always be kept out of association business but most associations, within their founding documents, either include submitting to the statutes of the laws of the State, or are filed under the authority of the state (such as the Secretary of State).

What are some examples of a Private Membership Association?

Drinking is allowed inside “private clubs” in “dry counties” in states of The United States of America where the sale of alcohol to the public is restricted or illegal; smoking is allowed inside “cigar bars” or "private clubs" in states having public laws prohibiting smoking in government buildings and in buildings open to the public; membership is restricted and only private rules apply inside private golf, baseball, football, soccer and other sports clubs; Men’s, Women’s, Boy’s and Girl’s Clubs; the Cub, Brownie, Boy and Girl Scouts of America; the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (N.A.A.C.P.); the American Medical Association; and, even the local, state and federal BAR Associations, all of which are various forms of a PMA, generally follow only their own rules, not public law.

If they have these protections in place, shouldn't we? The biggest part of the case law that keeps the government restriction and intrusion out of your business comes from court decisions starting in the 1950's and 1960's. Prior to that, there wasn't much effort on the part of government to over step their boundaries when it comes to a private association so there wasn't a need to involve the courts. Since that time, there have been very few cases of government being able to successfully challenge the operation of a PMA and the few that fall into that category were only successful because the PMA was formed in statutory compliance giving government the authority to intervene from the founding of the association.

The protections of a Properly Established Private Association have been known, and widely used, throughout the natural healthcare industry for a long time but most people never had a need to know about it.

I never saw where the Pennsylvania Dept of Agriculture argued that Miller was not a Private Membership Association (PMA). So I don't think that is the issue.

Then if Miller is a legitimate PMA, it looks like an open and shut case, and the PA Dept of Ag has already lost. So I don't think that is the issue.

But, if the PA Dept of Ag is challenging the right of all Private Membership Associations to act in private, then that would make sense why Robert Barnes and thousands of people outside PA are interested and supporting Miller in this case. What happens to Miller could affect all PMAs. And that explains why Miller won't buckle under pressure, and why the PA Dept of Ag is determined to break Miller.

So it is more than just selling raw milk. They want the power to regulate all PMAs.

Being a Private Membership Association, acting in private with private members, is the real issue.

No, it is about engaging in commerce.

You can be a private membership club and operate something like a youth soccer league which I have done for 15 years and no one from the state thinks to bother you.

But if you are going to engage in commercial commerce of food and agricultural products then you will be subject to regulations. It doesn't really matter how you structure your business. Or even if you sell to the public. If you only sell to say a single school district or private hospital and not members of the public the regulations apply as well.

[Josh]

The state of PA argued that their rules apply to even private sales. The only way it would be exempt is if no money changed hands at all.

It is unclear how it would work if Miller reorganised where his customers instead became shareholders. In Ohio that is the only way to organise to distribute raw milk, although the logistics are quite simple; the farmer does the following things:

#1. Forms an LLC or corporation
#2. Sells his cattle to that LLC.
#3. The customer who wants to buy raw milk buys shares in that LLC; nominally, they get whatever milk production comes from that, so if they (for example) purchase a herdshare of half of the cow, they get half of whatever the average cow in the herd produces. (If the herd starts producing poorly, the total amount available might go down.)
#4. The customer also pays a "boarding fee" and a "milking fee", usually per-gallon, for the farmer to stable and milk the cows on the shareholder's behalf. (There might also be a delivery fee for milk delivered right to your door.)
#5. The shareholder agreement allows the farmer to reserve the right sell a given share's excess milk beyond what the customer wants to pay in boarding fees/milking fees to a dairy processor.
#6. The shareholder agreement says that other shareholders have right of first refusal to buy a share if a shareholder wants to liquidate their share, and that any such sales must be approved by the senior shareholder (typically the farmer).

I am myself a shareholder in such an arrangement and when I want more milk, I buy extra shares, and if we seem to be getting too much then I sell the shares back. I much prefer to pay directly $5 or so a gallon instead of buying it for $5 at the grocery store and then the farmer getting paid $1.50 or so by a dairy processor.

"Let the buyer beware"; it is prudent to go and visit the farm yourself and meet the dairy farmer and ensure you feel comfortable with how he is doing things. A good farmer will, obviously, be happy to show potential shareholders around and also explain any details of the agreement.

None of this allows trafficking in interstate milk. The federal government does seem to have jurisdiction over goods that cross state lines. However, food produced and consumed entirely within the state seems to me to be a state matter, Wickard v Filburn not withstanding.

[Judas Maccabeus]

The state of PA argued that their rules apply to even private sales. The only way it would be exempt is if no money changed hands at all.

It is unclear how it would work if Miller reorganised where his customers instead became shareholders. In Ohio that is the only way to organise to distribute raw milk, although the logistics are quite simple; the farmer does the following things:

#1. Forms an LLC or corporation
#2. Sells his cattle to that LLC.
#3. The customer who wants to buy raw milk buys shares in that LLC; nominally, they get whatever milk production comes from that, so if they (for example) purchase a herdshare of half of the cow, they get half of whatever the average cow in the herd produces. (If the herd starts producing poorly, the total amount available might go down.)
#4. The customer also pays a "boarding fee" and a "milking fee", usually per-gallon, for the farmer to stable and milk the cows on the shareholder's behalf. (There might also be a delivery fee for milk delivered right to your door.)
#5. The shareholder agreement allows the farmer to reserve the right sell a given share's excess milk beyond what the customer wants to pay in boarding fees/milking fees to a dairy processor.
#6. The shareholder agreement says that other shareholders have right of first refusal to buy a share if a shareholder wants to liquidate their share, and that any such sales must be approved by the senior shareholder (typically the farmer).

I am myself a shareholder in such an arrangement and when I want more milk, I buy extra shares, and if we seem to be getting too much then I sell the shares back. I much prefer to pay directly $5 or so a gallon instead of buying it for $5 at the grocery store and then the farmer getting paid $1.50 or so by a dairy processor.

"Let the buyer beware"; it is prudent to go and visit the farm yourself and meet the dairy farmer and ensure you feel comfortable with how he is doing things. A good farmer will, obviously, be happy to show potential shareholders around and also explain any details of the agreement.

None of this allows trafficking in interstate milk. The federal government does seem to have jurisdiction over goods that cross state lines. However, food produced and consumed entirely within the state seems to me to be a state matter, Wickard v Filburn not withstanding.

In my fine state, all raw milk sales are illegal, period. I suspect that if a farmer would consume his own, the state would not notice.

[Ken]

The state of PA argued that their rules apply to even private sales. The only way it would be exempt is if no money changed hands at all.

It is unclear how it would work if Miller reorganised where his customers instead became shareholders. In Ohio that is the only way to organise to distribute raw milk, although the logistics are quite simple; the farmer does the following things:

#1. Forms an LLC or corporation
#2. Sells his cattle to that LLC.
#3. The customer who wants to buy raw milk buys shares in that LLC; nominally, they get whatever milk production comes from that, so if they (for example) purchase a herdshare of half of the cow, they get half of whatever the average cow in the herd produces. (If the herd starts producing poorly, the total amount available might go down.)
#4. The customer also pays a "boarding fee" and a "milking fee", usually per-gallon, for the farmer to stable and milk the cows on the shareholder's behalf. (There might also be a delivery fee for milk delivered right to your door.)
#5. The shareholder agreement allows the farmer to reserve the right sell a given share's excess milk beyond what the customer wants to pay in boarding fees/milking fees to a dairy processor.
#6. The shareholder agreement says that other shareholders have right of first refusal to buy a share if a shareholder wants to liquidate their share, and that any such sales must be approved by the senior shareholder (typically the farmer).

I am myself a shareholder in such an arrangement and when I want more milk, I buy extra shares, and if we seem to be getting too much then I sell the shares back. I much prefer to pay directly $5 or so a gallon instead of buying it for $5 at the grocery store and then the farmer getting paid $1.50 or so by a dairy processor.

"Let the buyer beware"; it is prudent to go and visit the farm yourself and meet the dairy farmer and ensure you feel comfortable with how he is doing things. A good farmer will, obviously, be happy to show potential shareholders around and also explain any details of the agreement.

None of this allows trafficking in interstate milk. The federal government does seem to have jurisdiction over goods that cross state lines. However, food produced and consumed entirely within the state seems to me to be a state matter, Wickard v Filburn not withstanding.

That seems like an astonishing amount of time and effort to simply avoid having your facility licensed inspected like the other 119 small-scale raw milk producers who are operating without trouble within the state of Pennsylvania. Including the several dozen who are operating in Lancaster County.

[Josh]

That seems like an astonishing amount of time and effort to simply avoid having your facility licensed inspected like the other 119 small-scale raw milk producers who are operating without trouble within the state of Pennsylvania. Including the several dozen who are operating in Lancaster County.

About 5 seconds to sign the paperwork and another 5 to hand over the cash, or 20 seconds to write out a cheque.

Ohio doesn't have any state regulated commercial raw milk sales regime like PA and CA have.

Incidentally, JM, in Maryland raw milk sales for pet milk are legal, and an individual has the freedom to decide to consume pet food, although in my household we are placing significant restrictions on my 2 year old when he decides to sample the cat, dog, or chicken feed.

[Judas Maccabeus]

That seems like an astonishing amount of time and effort to simply avoid having your facility licensed inspected like the other 119 small-scale raw milk producers who are operating without trouble within the state of Pennsylvania. Including the several dozen who are operating in Lancaster County.

About 5 seconds to sign the paperwork and another 5 to hand over the cash, or 20 seconds to write out a cheque.

Ohio doesn't have any state regulated commercial raw milk sales regime like PA and CA have.

Incidentally, JM, in Maryland raw milk sales for pet milk are legal, and an individual has the freedom to decide to consume pet food, although in my household we are placing significant restrictions on my 2 year old when he decides to sample the cat, dog, or chicken feed.

Yes, it is, but don’t tell the person selling it what you intend to use it for. Technically, it is not for human consumption.

“Heard shares”: are technically illegal as well.