I drank raw milk as a child. It was normal in Ukraine. I was a big-city kid with relatives in the countryside and I first got to milk a cow on one of our visits when I was four. It didn’t work out because I was afraid to tug, and nobody was going to be able to persuade me that the cow didn’t mind and, in fact, welcomed being able to lighten the burden of her udders. An adult would always end up doing the milking and give me a cup “fresh from under the cow”, as it was called.
I didn’t like the taste, so I never sought out raw milk since then. But I’m very much alive, as we can see. I get why people would drink raw milk “from under the cow” but seeking it in stores looks like an affectation. The transportation, the storage – the purported freshness is an illusion after all that.
In short, nobody is going to die either from drinking it or not drinking it. Getting emotionally attached to either activity is silly.
Clarissa's Blog 
Milked 253 Cows for two or more years on Kibbutzim. Love raw milk. Pasteurization destroys some of these natural components: beneficial enzymes, probiotic and a richer flavor. Just as parents should not share their rights to educate their children with the federal government so too Freedom equally applies to consumers making their own decisions.
Before pasteurization became widespread, raw milk was associated with outbreaks of diseases like tuberculosis and brucellosis. Infants, small children, the elderly, pregnant women, and those with compromised immune systems are particularly vulnerable to food poisoning.
The intersection of constitutional powers and the raw milk debate! The Commerce Clause in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” It’s a critical piece of our constitutional framework. Lincoln Republican made a radical interpretation of this Constitutional language.
The Commerce Clause gives Congress authority over various aspects of commerce, including both interstate and international trade. It’s often broken down into specific components: the Foreign Commerce Clause, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Indian Commerce Clause.
During the Marshall Court era (1801–1835), the interpretation of the Commerce Clause expanded significantly. Congress gained jurisdiction over intrastate and interstate commerce, even matters traditionally considered non-commerce-related. However, starting in 1937, after the end of the Lochner era, the use of the Commerce Clause by Congress to regulate economic matters became effectively unlimited.
The federal government’s regulation of raw milk falls under the Commerce Clause. The argument is that even if raw milk doesn’t cross state lines, its production and consumption can indirectly affect interstate commerce. In cases like Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where the ban on growing medical marijuana for personal use was deemed within Congress’s Commerce Clause powers.
In essence, the debate centers on balancing federal authority with states’ rights. Raw milk regulation is just one example of how this tension plays out. So, whether you’re pro-raw milk or pro-pasteurization, remember that constitutional interpretations are as complex as the milk supply chain!
States retain significant powers within their borders, including the police power—the authority to regulate health, safety, and welfare. Could states demand the closure of federal bureaucracies and reclaim authority? The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) establishes that federal law prevails over state law when there’s a conflict.
While states have authority, certain functions (e.g., national defense, foreign relations) are inherently federal. The Intolerable Acts and other colonial struggles instilled a deep distrust of Big Brother-style governance among the Founding Fathers. The Framers intended to establish a government with specific, defined powers. They wanted a balance: a national government strong enough to govern effectively but restricted enough to prevent tyranny.
The tension lies in balancing federal authority with states’ rights. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI) ensures that federal law prevails over state law in conflicts. However, it’s essential to recognize that this supremacy applies specifically to constitutional federal law and treaties. When federal and state laws clash, the Constitution takes precedence.
The 10th Amendment and States’ Rights: It reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In essence, it reinforces states’ rights by emphasizing that any powers not explicitly granted to the federal government remain with the states or the people. While the Supremacy Clause ensures federal primacy in specific areas, the 10th Amendment reminds us that states retain significant powers.
LikeLike