Karen Selick: It’s time for the federal and provincial legislatures to pay attention, just as they finally did with marijuana, and remove this thorn from everyone’s side
As Canada ambles along towards the day when its prisons will empty of people who did nothing more heinous than possess marijuana, the province of Ontario appears eager to fill its empty jail cells with individuals whose so-called crime was distributing raw milk.
On Jan. 5, 2018, Justice P. W. Sutherland of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice imposed an injunction in a case called Downing v. ARC. Downing is the provincial Milk Act Director, while ARC is an incorporated farm co-op that allegedly was distributing raw milk, but has now closed down its milk operation. In essence, the decision transformed an action that was previously a provincial regulatory offence punishable only by fines — distributing raw milk — into a federal crime punishable by up to two years in prison.
As is often the case when raw milk makes headlines, the case involved farmer Michael Schmidt, who has campaigned for decades for the legal right to fill the niche market for unpasteurized milk and cheese. Schmidt originally owned the farm that was later transformed into the ARC co-op. However, the injunction granted by Sutherland affects not only Schmidt and the several family members and incorporated co-ops, including ARC, who were actually sued in the lawsuits, it also affects anyone who happens to have knowledge of the existence of this new injunction.
So if you’re reading this article, and you’re among the probably hundreds of Ontarians who distribute unpasteurized milk or milk products, then you should stop reading immediately, try to forget everything you’ve read so far, or at least never admit to having read it. Although ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse for people charged with an offence, Sutherland’s order has made it advantageous for purveyors of raw milk to be ill-informed.
Schmidt’s operation has a 25-year history of safety. Knowing that they were perpetually in the limelight and under scrutiny, the farmers focused on quality and sanitation. No one has ever been known to get sick from raw milk produced there. The fly-by-night guys who’ll be pedaling raw milk out of the backs of their pickup trucks — and there have certainly been cases like this — probably won’t be taking the same precautions. Buyers are therefore more likely to get food poisoning.
Ontario’s law requiring mandatory pasteurization was first enacted in the 1930s and has outlived its “best before” date by a few decades. Several milk-borne diseases prevalent 80 years ago have been virtually eradicated by now. Advances in technology and general increases in our standard of living have further reduced the risk. Bacterial testing is readily available, transportation is fast, and consumers can all afford refrigerators.
But Ontario stubbornly refuses to reconsider the legislation. Schmidt’s 37-day hunger strike in 2011 culminated in a meeting with then premier Dalton McGuinty, but nothing changed.
Meanwhile, over the 24 years that Ontario has been prosecuting Schmidt, the number of U.S. states that have enacted laws allowing consumers to access raw milk has risen from 26 to 42. Canada is the only G7 country that completely prohibits the distribution and sale of raw milk, through both federal and provincial laws. In many European countries, raw milk is sold in vending machines. Italy alone has about 1,300 such machines.
Do all these foreign governments care less about their people than Canadian governments do? Or do they simply recognize that raw milk really isn’t very risky compared to all kinds of stuff that people consume legally every day? Canadian kids make an alarming number of trips to the hospital emergency room every year (and occasionally die) due to choking on hard candies or balloons, but we don’t outlaw those. Deadly cigarettes and alcohol are still legal.
Sutherland’s injunction is being appealed. Simultaneously, lawyers have launched a constitutional challenge seeking to overrule the province’s outdated legislation. Fighting this through the courts (yet again) will just add to the millions of taxpayer dollars that Ontario has already squandered on “protecting” people who either don’t need or don’t want that protection.
Virtually everyone who learns about this issue has sympathy with the position of Schmidt and the consumers’ co-op. Even Sutherland acknowledged his own sympathy in his decision. It’s time for the federal and provincial legislatures to pay attention, just as they finally did with marijuana, and remove this thorn from everyone’s side.
Karen Selick was Michael Schmidt’s lawyer from 2010 to 2013.
As Canada ambles along towards the day when its prisons will empty of people who did nothing more heinous than possess marijuana, the province of Ontario appears eager to fill its empty jail cells with individuals whose so-called crime was distributing raw milk.
On Jan. 5, 2018, Justice P. W. Sutherland of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice imposed an injunction in a case called Downing v. ARC. Downing is the provincial Milk Act Director, while ARC is an incorporated farm co-op that allegedly was distributing raw milk, but has now closed down its milk operation. In essence, the decision transformed an action that was previously a provincial regulatory offence punishable only by fines — distributing raw milk — into a federal crime punishable by up to two years in prison.
As is often the case when raw milk makes headlines, the case involved farmer Michael Schmidt, who has campaigned for decades for the legal right to fill the niche market for unpasteurized milk and cheese. Schmidt originally owned the farm that was later transformed into the ARC co-op. However, the injunction granted by Sutherland affects not only Schmidt and the several family members and incorporated co-ops, including ARC, who were actually sued in the lawsuits, it also affects anyone who happens to have knowledge of the existence of this new injunction.
So if you’re reading this article, and you’re among the probably hundreds of Ontarians who distribute unpasteurized milk or milk products, then you should stop reading immediately, try to forget everything you’ve read so far, or at least never admit to having read it. Although ignorance of the law is generally not an excuse for people charged with an offence, Sutherland’s order has made it advantageous for purveyors of raw milk to be ill-informed.
- Ontario keeps spending a fortune prosecuting a farmer who’s hurt no one and who keeps selling his milk
- ‘It’s not illegal to drink raw milk’: Farmer-turned activist renews campaign for unpasteurized dairy
Schmidt’s operation has a 25-year history of safety. Knowing that they were perpetually in the limelight and under scrutiny, the farmers focused on quality and sanitation. No one has ever been known to get sick from raw milk produced there. The fly-by-night guys who’ll be pedaling raw milk out of the backs of their pickup trucks — and there have certainly been cases like this — probably won’t be taking the same precautions. Buyers are therefore more likely to get food poisoning.
Ontario’s law requiring mandatory pasteurization was first enacted in the 1930s and has outlived its “best before” date by a few decades. Several milk-borne diseases prevalent 80 years ago have been virtually eradicated by now. Advances in technology and general increases in our standard of living have further reduced the risk. Bacterial testing is readily available, transportation is fast, and consumers can all afford refrigerators.
But Ontario stubbornly refuses to reconsider the legislation. Schmidt’s 37-day hunger strike in 2011 culminated in a meeting with then premier Dalton McGuinty, but nothing changed.
Meanwhile, over the 24 years that Ontario has been prosecuting Schmidt, the number of U.S. states that have enacted laws allowing consumers to access raw milk has risen from 26 to 42. Canada is the only G7 country that completely prohibits the distribution and sale of raw milk, through both federal and provincial laws. In many European countries, raw milk is sold in vending machines. Italy alone has about 1,300 such machines.
Do all these foreign governments care less about their people than Canadian governments do? Or do they simply recognize that raw milk really isn’t very risky compared to all kinds of stuff that people consume legally every day? Canadian kids make an alarming number of trips to the hospital emergency room every year (and occasionally die) due to choking on hard candies or balloons, but we don’t outlaw those. Deadly cigarettes and alcohol are still legal.
Sutherland’s injunction is being appealed. Simultaneously, lawyers have launched a constitutional challenge seeking to overrule the province’s outdated legislation. Fighting this through the courts (yet again) will just add to the millions of taxpayer dollars that Ontario has already squandered on “protecting” people who either don’t need or don’t want that protection.
Virtually everyone who learns about this issue has sympathy with the position of Schmidt and the consumers’ co-op. Even Sutherland acknowledged his own sympathy in his decision. It’s time for the federal and provincial legislatures to pay attention, just as they finally did with marijuana, and remove this thorn from everyone’s side.
Karen Selick was Michael Schmidt’s lawyer from 2010 to 2013.
