Herdshare

Last updated

A herdshare is a contractual arrangement between a farmer and an owner of livestock - the shareholder or member - through which the shareholder is able to obtain raw milk, meat, offal and other profits of the livestock proportionate to the shareholder's interest in the herd. [1] Herdshares include cowshares, goatshares, and sheepshares, and are sometime referred to as "farmshares" or "dairy-shares," although the term "farmshare" can also refer to an entire farm (buildings, land, equipment, etc.) held in joint ownership.

Contents

A herdshare enables consumers to obtain raw (unpasteurized) milk in a jurisdiction that may otherwise prohibit the sale of raw milk. Parties may also choose to enter into herdshare agreements even in jurisdictions that do permit some type of raw milk sale because a herdshare may provide a more economically secure business model for a dairy farmer than conventional dairy farming otherwise would provide for.

Terms of the herdshare agreement

Under the terms of a herdshare agreement, the shareholder purchases a share of a dairy farmer's herd and receives a portion of either the product or the profit of the herd proportionate to the shareholder's corresponding interest. Unlike a direct sale of raw milk for consideration, a shareholder pays a one-time fee in exchange for her undivided interest in the herd. This is the purchase agreement or the bill of sale. In addition to the bill of sale, the shareholder pays a monthly boarding fee (or "agistment fee") that covers the farmer's cost for labor and maintenance of the herd.

For example, if the farmer has one cow valued at $800, the shareholder may purchase a 1/25 undivided interest in the herd (or here, a single cow) for $32.00. The parties would execute a bill of sale transferring a 1/25 ownership stake in the cow from the farmer to the shareholder in exchange for $32.00. If the cow produces 30 gallons of milk per week, the shareholder may choose to receive up to 1 and a 1/5 gallons of milk per week (30 gallons of milk divided by 25 possible shares). If the cow is slaughtered, then the shareholder may also be entitled to 1/25 of the meat or the value of the meat. If the cow is shown at a competition and wins a prize, the shareholder may choose to receive up to 1/25 of the value of that award.

In addition to both the bill of sale and the boarding fee, the herdshare agreement may include terms for a trial period, collection and storage of the milk, care of the herd, maintenance of the farm, liability, default, and risk of loss. Terms for the boarding, care of the herd, and handling of the milk may be separate documents.

History of herdshares

Agistment

Advocates of herdshare arrangements argue that herdsharing is rooted in the common law tradition of agistment. [2] Agistment is "a type of bailment in which a person, for a fee, allows animals to graze on his or her pasture." [3] References to agistment in England can be traced as far back as 1305. [4] Agistment is still practiced in the countries that make up the Commonwealth of Nations and in the western United States primarily for the grazing of beef cattle (and sometimes sheep).

Herdshare advocates maintain that the dairy farmer operating a herdshare is merely an "agister" who holds the cows in bailment for the cow's owners, the shareholders. [2] However, some courts in the United States reject this interpretation of the herdshare agreement refusing to find that the shareholder has a legitimate claim to ownership in the herd; rather, those courts have found that the shareholder merely has a claim to the milk produced by the herd and that as such the agreement constitutes an unlawful exchange of consideration for raw milk. [5]

In the United States

The Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization that encourages raw milk consumption and advocates for increased consumer access to raw milk, claims [6] that the first example of an arrangement bearing some similarity to a herdshare occurred in 1627 when Captain Myles Standish of the Plymouth Colony purchased a 1/6 share of a "red cow." [7]

The first herdshare began in the United States in 1995 in Loveland, Colorado at Guidestone CSA Farm and Center for Sustainable Living. [8] In 2013, the Weston A. Price Foundation listed 365 herdshares operating in 31 states. [9]

StateNo. of HerdsharesNotesStateNo. of HerdsharesNotes
Alabama2No law for or against itMontana0Sale prohibited
Alaska6Herdshares tolerated [10] Nebraska0On farm sales permitted
Arizona1Retail sale permittedNevada1Sale prohibited
Arkansas1Limited on farm sales permittedNew Hampshire3Retail sale permitted
California6Retail sale permittedNew Jersey1Sale prohibited
Colorado35Herdshares permittedNew Mexico2Retail sale permitted
Connecticut0Retail sale permittedNew York2On farm sale permitted
Delaware0Sale prohibitedNorth Carolina0Sale restricted to pet food
Florida0Herdshares prohibitedNorth Dakota2Herdshares permitted
Georgia2Sale prohibited (pet food exception)Ohio25Retail sale prohibited; herdshares tolerated
Hawaii0Sales prohibitedOklahoma0On farm sales permitted
Idaho1Herdshares permittedOregon17Limited on farms sales permitted
Illinois5On farm sales permittedPennsylvania2Retail sale permitted
Indiana23Sale prohibited (herdshares tolerated) [11] Rhode Island0Sale prohibited
Iowa0Sale prohibitedSouth Carolina0Retail sale permitted
Kansas2On farm sale permittedSouth Dakota0On farm sales permitted
Kentucky18Goat milk available with prescriptionTennessee43Herdshares permitted
Louisiana0Herdshares prohibitedTexas13On farm sales permitted
Maine1Retail sale permittedUtah0On farm sales permitted, but herdshares prohibited
Maryland0Herdshares prohibitedVermont2On farm sales permitted
Massachusetts1Retail sale permittedVirginia88Sale prohibited
Michigan55Herdshares permittedWashington1Retail sale permitted
Minnesota1On farm sales permittedWest Virginia0Herdshares prohibited
Mississippi0Limited on farm sale of goat milk permittedWisconsin0On farm sales permitted
Missouri1On farm sale permittedWyoming3Herdshares tolerated

Motivation for participating in herdshares

Researchers at Michigan State University Department of Large Animal Clinical Studies interviewed 56 individuals all of whom obtained raw milk for personal consumption through a herdshare arrangement. [12] Shareholders drove an average of 24 miles approximately 4 times per month to pick up their raw milk from the farm. [12] Half of the respondents lived in the "country" while the remainder lived in the suburbs or the city. [12] 64% of respondents had a bachelor's degree or higher. [12] 91% of respondents believed that raw milk is healthier than pasteurized milk and nearly 80% disagreed with the claim that drinking raw milk would increase their risk of contracting a foodborne illness. [12] Virtually all respondents had visited the farm where their milk was produced. [12] Respondents drink raw milk for the following reasons:

Reason for consuming raw milk [12]  %
Taste83.9%
Immune-related disease prevention60.7%
Doesn't feel processed milk is safe57.1%
Supports local farms85.7%
Holistic health benefits76.8%

Raw milk controversy

No jurisdiction in the United States bans either the production or the consumption of raw milk. However, a few states restrict to varying degrees the sale of raw milk. Twelve states in the United States permit herdshare arrangements via legislation, regulation, policy, or court decision:

State:Legal by:Citation:
AlaskastatuteAlaska Administrative Code 32.010(c)
ColoradostatuteColorado Revised Statutes, 25-5.5-117. Raw milk
ConnecticutstatuteSenate Bill 360, 2015 Session
IdahostatuteIdaho Statutes, Title 37, Ch. 11 - Acquisition of Raw Milk
MichiganpolicyMichigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Policy 1.40
North DakotastatuteNorth Dakota Century Code, Ch. 40-30
Ohiocourt decisionSchmitmeyer vs. Ohio Department of Agriculture, Case No 06-CV-63277
UtahstatuteUtah Code, Title 4, Ch. 3 Utah Dairy Act
TennesseestatuteTennessee State Code, 53-3-119 Use of milk from hoofed mammal for owner's personal consumption or use.
WyomingregulationWyoming Food Safety Rule, Chapter 3 Food Care, Section 8, Fluid Milk and Milk Products
West VirginiastatuteWest Virginia Code, §19-1-7. Shared animal ownership agreement to consume raw milk.
WashingtonstatuteWashington State Code, 15.36.012

Federal law

The federal government of the United States prohibits the interstate sale or transfer of raw milk.

No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale or other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct human consumption [that has not been pasteurized]. [13]

While not expressly prohibiting herdshares, the language "otherwise distribute... in interstate commerce" would appear to bar herdshares from operating across state lines. Indeed, in 2012, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania convicted a dairy farmer for unlawfully entering raw milk into interstate commerce. [14] The farmer claimed to operate a herdshare. [14] The court stated (in dicta) that the herdshare agreement here was

merely a subterfuge to create a transaction disguised as a sale of raw milk to consumers. The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to [the farmer] and receive raw milk, which is transported across state lines and left at a 'drop point.' As such, despite any artful language, the agreement involves the transfer of raw milk for consideration, which constitutes a sale and is lawfully regulated by the FDA. [15]

Following this ruling, one noteworthy commentator speculated that the era of the herdshare agreement was nearing its end noting that raw milk activists would do better to pursue legislative rather than judicial strategies. [16]

State laws

The regulatory power of the federal government does not currently extend to intrastate raw milk transactions. [17] But at least one commentator has argued that the federal government may have authority to regulate the intrastate sale and transfer of raw milk in light of the Supreme Court's recent commerce clause jurisprudence. [18]

46 of 50 states have adopted the Food and Drug Administration's Grade A Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), [19] a uniform code of guidelines to promote the standardization of milk production. Section 9 of the PMO concerning the sale of raw milk reads in pertinent part:

[O]nly Grade “A” pasteurized, ultra-pasteurized, or aseptically processed and packaged milk and milk products shall be sold to the final consumer, to restaurants, soda fountains, grocery stores or similar establishments. [20]

Several courts have interpreted the word "sale" in the PMO to preclude herdshares on the grounds that a herdshare is little more than an impermissible sale by another name. Nevertheless, herdshares continue to operate in states governed by the PMO.

State statutes

Not content to leave regulation of herdshares to either a court or agency interpretation of the PMO, seven states have supplemented the law with more precise language. Nine states currently permit herdshares through statute: Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, North Carolina, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Nevada expressly prohibits milk herdshares by statute.

State regulations

One example of state regulations is found in Alaska, [21] which permits the "owner" of the livestock to consume the milk of the animal. An example of how a court may determine ownership can be found in Slippy v. Northey below. Nevertheless, state officials in at least Alaska presume that the herdshare agreement vests ownership of a share of the herd in the shareholder. [22]

Maryland prohibits herdsharing by regulation. [23] The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the state's prohibition of herdshares in its 2009 ruling in Ozaryo v. Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al. [24]

State policy opinions

In 2013, the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development issued [25] Policy # 1.40 [26] stating that it would permit herdshare operations that include a signed agreement between the parties and allow for a "workable means of communication" between the farmer and the shareholders.

Court rulings

The Supreme Court of Virginia rejected a farmer's herdshare arrangement in its 1989 ruling in Kenley v. Solem. [27] There, the farmer proposed to sell undivided interests in her goats for $50.00 per share plus a $3.00 daily maintenance fee that would entitle the shareholder to up to one gallon of milk per day. [27] The court characterized this latter payment as merely a "sham payment for the gallon of milk received by the owner from [the defendant]." [27] Virginia's administrative code at that time prohibited the sale of raw milk and milk products [27] and still does to this day. [28]

In spite of Virginia's regulatory code prohibiting raw milk sales and the Court's 1989 ruling, herdshares appear to be thriving in Virginia. [29] Virginia's 88 herdshare operations listed on the Weston A. Price Foundation's Real Milk Finder webpage are the most of any state, even among those that statutorily permit herdsharing.

Herdshare activists heralded [30] a 2006 Ohio trial court's ruling in Schmitmeyer v. Ohio Dept. of Agr. [31] as permitting herdshares by precedent. There, the court rejected ODA's attempt to delicense a dairy producer for unlawfully selling raw milk to consumers. [31] The dairy farmer claimed that she was operating a herdshare. [31] The herdshare agreement required shareholders to pay a flat $50.00 fee in addition to a weekly $6.00 per week boarding fee that the shareholders paid when they picked up their milk. [31] The court questioned ODA's "inexact practice" of permitting some owners (the farmers) to consume raw milk but not other owners. [31] Ohio's law prohibits any "raw milk retailer" from selling or "exposing for sale raw milk to the final consumer." [32]

In 2012, an Iowa trial court invalidated a herdshare agreement in Slippy v. Northey. [33] There, the shareholder challenged the state's issuance of a cease and desist letter to a dairy farmer managing her herdshare. [33] While the court initially found that the Plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the state's action, it nevertheless proceeded to rule on the merits. [33] It found that the Plaintiff's herdshare agreement amounted to little more than a share in an interest in milk and that it lacked sufficient characteristics of a transfer of a legitimate property interest in a herd of cows. [33] Iowa's law only permits the sale of "grade 'A' pasteurized milk and milk products... to the final consumer." [34] 37 years earlier, the Iowa Supreme Court in Johnson County v. Guernsey Ass'n of Johnson County, Iowa, Inc. invalidated a corporate structure for the distribution of raw milk to the final consumers. [35]

Criticism and defense of herdshares

In addition to the rejection of herdshare agreements by several courts, one commentator has gone so far as to state that referring to herdshare agreements as "a species of legal maneuvering may be giving too much credit to an effort that that is designed to flout the law entirely, or at the very least avoid the often stringent requirements associated with licensure." [36]

Raw milk and herdshare advocates argue that individuals have a fundamental right to contract, or in the alternative, that individuals have a fundamental right to consume and grow the foods of their choice. Courts have rejected both of these arguments.

Ongoing litigation in Ontario

In 2006, the government of Ontario filed charges against herdshare farmer, Michael Schmidt for violating both Section 18(1) of the Health Promotion and Protection Act which bars the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk and Section 15(1) of the Milk Act which bars the operation of an unlicensed "milk plant." [37] At the time the Crown charged Schmidt, he operated a 150-member herdshare with 24 cows on 100 acres at Glencolton Farms near Durham, Ontario. Members paid $300 for a single share of 1/4 of a cow. [37] Schmidt was acquitted at his 2009 trial. The Crown appealed Schmidt's acquittal and in 2011 the Ontario Court of Justice overturned Schmidt's acquittal. [37] The Court fined Schmidt $5,000 and ordered him to pay $50,000 in court costs. [38]

The Ontario court found that the herdshare arrangement did not include a formal contract of purchase or sale and that legal title to the cows remained with Schmidt. [37] It equated membership in the herdshare to membership in a "big box" store "that requires a fee to be paid in order to gain access to the products located therein." [37]

Schmidt appealed his conviction. [38] A trial was set for February 5, 2014 at the Ontario Court of Appeals. [38]

Outbreaks in raw milk from herdshares in the United States

A herdshare agreement does not guarantee the safety of raw milk. Raw milk, like any other food product, is susceptible to contamination by foodborne pathogens which may result in illness. However, advocates maintain that a herdshare arrangement may offer the shareholder certain assurances relating to the care of the herd and handling of the milk that may result in a safer product that may otherwise be unavailable to consumers of retail raw milk purchased from either a grocery store, a farmers market or directly from the farmer at the farm or elsewhere.

In 2013, three of the eight bacteriological outbreaks in raw milk occurred in individuals who consumed milk produced on farms operating herdshares. [39]

MonthStateEtiologyNo. InfectedNo. HospitalizedDeathsNotes
Oct.Tennessee [40] E.coil 0157 930200 shareholders
MayAlaska [41] Campylobacter 500Less than 10 cows; same dairy as below
Feb.Alaska [42] Campylobacter3100

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milk</span> White liquid produced by the mammary glands of mammals

Milk is a white liquid food produced by the mammary glands of mammals. It is the primary source of nutrition for young mammals before they are able to digest solid food. Immune factors and immune-modulating components in milk contribute to milk immunity. Early-lactation milk, which is called colostrum, contains antibodies that strengthen the immune system and thus reduce the risk of many diseases. Milk contains many nutrients, including calcium and protein, but also lactose and saturated fat.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pasteurization</span> Process of preserving foods with heat

In the field of food processing, pasteurization is a process of food preservation in which packaged and unpacked foods are treated with mild heat, usually to less than 100 °C (212 °F), to eliminate pathogens and extend shelf life. Pasteurization either destroys or deactivates microorganisms and enzymes that contribute to food spoilage or the risk of disease, including vegetative bacteria, but most bacterial spores survive the process.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy</span> Place where milk is stored and where butter and cheese are made or sold

A dairy is a place where milk is stored and where butter, cheese and other dairy products are made, or a place where those products are sold. It may be a room, a building or a larger establishment. In the United States, the word may also describe a dairy farm or the part of a mixed farm dedicated to milk for human consumption, whether from cows, buffaloes, goats, yaks, sheep, horses or camels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy farming</span> Long-term production of milk

Dairy farming is a class of agriculture for the long-term production of milk, which is processed for the eventual sale of a dairy product. Dairy farming has a history that goes back to the early Neolithic era, around the seventh millennium BC, in many regions of Europe and Africa. Before the 20th century, milking was done by hand on small farms. Beginning in the early 20th century, milking was done in large scale dairy farms with innovations including rotary parlors, the milking pipeline, and automatic milking systems that were commercially developed in the early 1990s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bovine somatotropin</span> Peptide hormone produced by cows pituitary glands

Bovine somatotropin or bovine somatotrophin, or bovine growth hormone (BGH), is a peptide hormone produced by cows' pituitary glands. Like other hormones, it is produced in small quantities and is used in regulating metabolic processes. Scientists created a bacterium that produces the hormone somatotropin which is produced by the cow's body after giving birth and increases milk production by around 10 percent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Raw milk</span> Milk that has not been pasteurized

Raw milk or unpasteurized milk is milk that has not been pasteurized, a process of heating liquid foods to kill pathogens for safe consumption and extending the shelf life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Weston A. Price Foundation</span> Organization

The Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), co-founded in 1999 by Sally Fallon (Morell) and nutritionist Mary G. Enig, is a U.S. 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to "restoring nutrient-dense foods to the American diet through education, research and activism".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy cattle</span> Cattle bred to produce milk

Dairy cattle are cattle bred with the ability to produce large quantities of milk, from which dairy products are made. Dairy cattle generally are of the species Bos taurus.

Agistment originally referred specifically to the proceeds of pasturage in the king's forests. To agist is, in English law, to take cattle to graze, in exchange for payment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Comté cheese</span> French medium-hard Alpine cheese

Comté is a French cheese made from unpasteurized cow's milk in the Franche-Comté region of eastern France bordering Switzerland and sharing much of its cuisine. Comté has the highest production of all French Appellation d'origine contrôlée (AOC) cheeses, at around 66,500 tons annually. It is classified as an Alpine cheese.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Somatic cell count</span> Count of cells, usually to detect mastitis and thus to assess milk quality

A somatic cell count (SCC) is a cell count of somatic cells in a fluid specimen, usually milk. In dairying, the SCC is an indicator of the quality of milk—specifically, its low likeliness to contain harmful bacteria, and thus its high food safety. White blood cells (leukocytes) constitute the majority of somatic cells in question. The number of somatic cells increases in response to pathogenic bacteria like Staphylococcus aureus, a cause of mastitis. The SCC is quantified as cells per milliliter. General agreement rests on a reference range of less than 100,000 cells/mL for uninfected cows and greater than 250,000 for cows infected with significant pathogen levels. Several tests like the PortaSCC milk test and The California mastitis test provide a cow-side measure of somatic cell count. The somatic cell count in the milk also increases after calving when colostrum is produced.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States raw milk debate</span>

The United States raw milk debate concerns issues of food safety and claimed health benefits of raw milk, and whether authorities responsible for regulating food safety should prohibit sale of raw milk for consumption.

Aajonus Vonderplanitz was an American alternative nutritionist and food-rights activist who focused on raw foods, particularly meat and dairy. He was a controversial figure who conducted legal battles, implemented legal loopholes for consumer access to raw milk, and developed a diet based largely on raw meat: the primal diet. His later years, marked by his allegations of conspiracies and by his infighting within the raw food community, drew him notoriety even among advocates of alternative healthcare and food rights.

Happy Cow Creamery is a family-owned dairy farm in Pelzer, South Carolina that bottles and sells its own milk on site from the farm's closed herd of grass-fed Holstein cattle. The creamery's whole milk, buttermilk and chocolate milk is sold in the farm's on-site store and through grocery, convenience and country stores in Upstate region of South Carolina. The milk is not homogenized and is low-temperature pasteurized and inspected by the State of South Carolina.

West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Glyde Farm Produce</span> Irish cheese company

Glyde Farm Produce was set up in 1996 by Peter Thomas who spent the next several years researching the market in Ireland for suitable dairy products. Peter and Anita Thomas started making Bellingham Blue cheese at their family farm at Mansfieldtown in County Louth, Ireland, in 2000.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Cheeses of Mexico</span> Overview of Mexican cheeses

Cheeses in Mexico have a history that begins with the Spanish conquest, as dairy products were unknown in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica. The Spanish brought dairy animals, such as cattle, sheep, and goats, as well as cheesemaking techniques. Over the colonial period, cheesemaking was modified to suit the mixed European and indigenous tastes of the inhabitants of New Spain, varying by region. This blending and variations have given rise to a number of varieties of Mexican cheeses. These are most popular in the country, although European cheeses are made, as well. Almost all cheese in Mexico is made with cows’ milk, with some made from goats’ milk. More recently, efforts have been made to promote sheep's milk cheeses. Most cheeses are made with raw (unpasteurized) milk. Cheeses are made in the home, on small farms or ranches, and by major dairy product firms. Between 20 and 40 different varieties of cheese are made in Mexico, depending on how one classifies them. Some, such as Oaxaca and panela, are made all over Mexico, but many are regional cheeses known only in certain sections on the country. Some of the least common are in danger of extinction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy farming in Canada</span> Overview of dairy farming in Canada

Dairy farming is one of the largest agricultural sectors in Canada. Dairy has a significant presence in all of the provinces and is one of the top two agricultural commodities in seven out of ten provinces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy and poultry supply management in Canada</span> Agricultural policy framework in Canada

Canada's supply management, abbreviated SM, is a national agricultural policy framework used across the country, which controls the supply of dairy, poultry and eggs through production and import controls and pricing mechanisms. The supply management system was authorized by the 1972 Farm Products Agencies Act, which established the two national agencies that oversee the system. The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada federal department is responsible for both the Canadian Dairy Commission and its analogue for eggs, chicken and turkey products, the Farm Products Council of Canada. Five national supply management organizations, the SM-5 Organizations — Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC), Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC), Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC), the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP) and the Ottawa-based Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation — in collaboration with provincial and national governing agencies, organizations and committees, administer the supply management system.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin dairy industry</span> Overview of the milk producing industry in Wisconsin

Dairy is a major industry in the state of Wisconsin. Being known for its dairy production, the state is often called "America's Dairyland." The industry is prominent in official state symbols—being displayed on the state's license plates, state's slogan, and on the state quarter.

References

  1. ↑ "Weston A. Price Foundation". Herdshares. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  2. 1 2 Fallon Morrel, Sally (23 May 2009). "America's First Cowshare Program". Weston A. Price Foundation. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  3. ↑ Black’s Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).
  4. ↑ Sir Simon Degge, The Parson's Counsellor: With The Law of Tythes and Thything 247 (1703).
  5. ↑ See Slippy v. Northey
  6. ↑ "America's First Cowshare Program". Weston A. Price Foundation. 23 May 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  7. ↑ "Devon Livestock Profile". Hobby Farms. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  8. ↑ Schmid, Ron (2009). The Untold Story of Raw Milk. New Trends Publishing, Inc. pp. 390–1. ISBN   978-0979209529.
  9. ↑ "Real Milk Finder". Weston A. Price Foundation. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  10. ↑ "Raw Milk Fact Sheet" (PDF). Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Environmental Health, Office of the State Veterinarian. Retrieved December 29, 2013.
  11. ↑ "Indiana State Board of Animal Health Report on the Issue of Selling Unpasteurized Milk to Consumers" (PDF). Indiana Board of Animal Health. November 2012. Currently individuals are acquiring raw milk from producers through cow or herdshare arrangements and pet food sales believing that these transactions are outside the current state statute requiring milk to be pasteurized. The current pasteurization statute does not explicitly contemplate these arrangements, creating uncertainty for regulators, producers and consumers as to the legal status of these transactions and arrangements.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Katafiasz, Angela Renee; Bartlett, Paul (March 2012). "Motivation for Unpasteurized Milk Consumption in Michigan, 2011" (PDF). Food Protection Trends. 32 (3): 124–128. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  13. ↑ 21 CFR § 1240.6.
  14. 1 2 United States v. Allgyer, 2012 WL 355261 (E.D. Penn, Feb 3, 2012).
  15. ↑ Allgyer, WL 355261 at 4, fn. 15 (2012).
  16. ↑ Foscolo, Jason (15 February 2012). "Federal Judge: Raw Milk Cow Shares "Merely a Subterfuge" for Direct Sale". Food Law Firm Blog. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  17. ↑ See Public Citizen v. Heckler, 653 F.Supp. 1229 (1986)(noting that "there is no indication that a rule banning the intrastate sale of raw milk is necessary to effectuate the interstate ban... [I]t is up to the states to decide on such matters of purely local concern.")
  18. ↑ Falkenstein, Drew (2013). "Raw Milk: An Issue of Safety or Freedom?". Journal of Environmental Health. 75 (8). National Law Review: 48–49. PMID   23621058 . Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  19. ↑ Hendrick, Scott (2012). "Summary of Raw Milk Statutes and Administrative Codes" (PDF). National Conference of State Legislatures. p. 2.
  20. ↑ "Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk Ordinance" (PDF). Food and Drug Administration. 2011. p. 119. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  21. ↑ 18 Alaska Administrative Code 32.010 ("The provisions of 18 AAC 32.010 - 18 AAC 32.060 do not apply to a person who owns a cow, goat, or sheep and uses the milk from the animal for the person's personal use.")
  22. ↑ Schwartz, Dan (May 23, 2013). "Raw milk infection spreading again". Peninsula Clarion. Retrieved December 27, 2013. ...the health department cannot force Byers to shut his operation down because Byers only distributes the milk; his shareholders collectively own the cows. 'If they are the owners of the cow, they can drink the milk,' state veterinarian Bob Gerlach said. 'And there's nothing we can do to prevent them from drinking the milk that is the product of an animal that is theirs.'
  23. ↑ Code of Maryland Regulations 10.15.06.02(B)(29) (prohibits the sale of raw milk and defines sale to include the "right to acquire milk and milk products... through... an agistment agreement which is the sale of shares or interest in a cow...")
  24. ↑ Ozaryo v. Maryland Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene, et al., 187 Md.App 264 (2009)
  25. ↑ Kennedy, Pete (May 27, 2013). "Michigan Adopts Policy on Herdshares". Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  26. ↑ "Policy 1.40". Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  27. 1 2 3 4 Kenley v. Solem, 237 Va. 202 (1989)
  28. ↑ 2 Virginia Administrative Code 5-490-73; 2 Virginia Administrative Code 5-490-75
  29. ↑ "Real Milk Finder: Virginia". Weston A. Price Foundation. Retrieved December 27, 2013.
  30. ↑ Cox, David (15 March 2007). "Herdshare Agreements Ruled Legal in Ohio". Weston A. Price Foundation. Retrieved December 27, 2013.
  31. 1 2 3 4 5 Schmitmeyer v. Ohio Dept. of Agr., 06-CV-63277(Common Pleas Court of Darke County, Ohio2006), Text .
  32. ↑ Ohio Revised Code § 917.04 (Retail license; warning labels)
  33. 1 2 3 4 Slippy v. Northey, EQCV067968(Linn County Circuit Court, Iowa2012), Text .
  34. ↑ Iowa Annotated Code § 192.103
  35. ↑ 232 N.W.2d 84 (1975)
  36. ↑ Falkenstein, Drew (April 15, 2010). "Raw Milk: An issue of Safety or Freedom". National Law Review.
  37. 1 2 3 4 5 Her Majesty the Queen v. Schmidt, Court File No.: Central East – Newmarket 4911-999-07-0384-00 (Ontario Court of Justice, Sept. 28, 2011).
  38. 1 2 3 "Raw milk "godfather" returning to court". The Post. December 16, 2013. Retrieved December 27, 2013.
  39. ↑ "Outbreaks from Foodborne Pathogens in Unpasteurized (Raw) Milk and Raw Milk Cheeses, United States 1998-present" (PDF). Real Raw Milk Facts. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  40. ↑ "E. coli traced back to raw milk from Tennessee farm". The Tennessean. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  41. ↑ "Second outbreak of Campylobacter illness in 2013 associated with raw milk" (PDF). State of Alaska Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
  42. ↑ "Raw Milk Campylobacter Outbreak — Kenai Peninsula, Jan–Feb 2013" (PDF). State of Alaska Department of Health and Social Services. Retrieved December 26, 2013.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.