Re: Tennessee milk blues

[Guest guest]

Well it sounds like the reversal gets you most of what you wanted, yes? If its

illegal to give out free samples then it helps cut down on your costs, :-)

without anyone thinking your stingy.

As far as the menonites living under the same laws you do, I dont doubt it, but

being that they have slightly different ways of doing things than most, they may

have either a grandfathered waiver or some backdoor policy to help them do their

thing. Not saying there is, but it would be useful to check out since you seem

to have a few similar overlaps.

Country hams is one cash item they have, so I naturally wonder if they do

cheese, butter, etc, (or do they have that just for family consumption)

" The Farm " is in Summertown, TN

their website is www.thefarm.org they are part of the global ecobalance

network...

I talked already with Vickie from The Farm. Now The Farm is kinda vegetarian and

don't do dairy in their community productions ( they do soy milk etc) however

they ran into some difficulties themselves a while back and the solution was to

keep a low profile AND get certified as " organic " .

Vickie herself happened to do yogurt apersonally and she believes the product

she buys comes frrom Ohio and is an organic product (non pasturized) but she

wasn't positive. Since we know that the Feds dont allow raw dairy to be shiped

across state lines (correct?) then perhaps the " organic " disignation is the

loop hole that allows this.

To get certified organic she suggested going to a local health food store and

check out their organic dairy products and then contact the producers (or even

the healthfood store itself) on the procedures.

I did a few clicks for what its worth...

the different certifiers told me that Tennessee itself has an organic

certification program through the State.

as a first step these two people were suggested as initial contact:

Regan (865)609 8109

Athena Bradley (423) 272 5163

I used my own name and companies in making inquieries, using a property address

I still have in East Tennessee, so as not to raise any flags against your

efforts.

----- Original Message -----

From: bilherbs@...

Sent: Monday, April 15, 2002 12:43 PM

Subject: Re: Tennessee milk blues

In a message dated 4/15/2002 11:36:00 AM Central Daylight Time,

panamabob@... writes:

> But lets get back to the nut here,,, do you have phone numbers handy for

> someone to start calling about getting a waiver?

The Department of Agriculture has reversed itself and will allow us to do

demonstrations and workshops but not give away any dairy. So no samples.

Have the menonite community in Tennessee been contacted to see what they may

> have arranged?

The Mennonites that we are friendly with live under the same laws that we do.

What do you mean by arranged?

Also The Farm, with their attorneys that are use to dealing with government?

>

>

Did a search for " The Farm " came up with insurance companies. Where is this

place?

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

[Guest guest]

Bob wrote:

But at least you have the comfort in knowing that they are NOT out

gunning for you :-)

******Whether or not I believe that is true, I find no comfort in that

statement.

Gosh Bianca, I don't suppose you ever had someone out gunning for you,

otherwise you'ld never ever consider saying what you did. It's a tremendous

peace of mind.

That to me means it isnt hopeless to try talking with the government reps

to get a change...

*****No one ever said it is hopeless, and I'm certainly advocating

change, just probably a different one than you..

So how do you advocate change Belinda?

bob said:

... resolved through simple dialogue...again they arent looking to

hurt you so you can relax.

*****as I said in earlier post, this foaming at the mouth revolutionary

stuff is a straw man which you can then easily tear down.

Huh ? I don't understand what you mean with that? What is a strawman? a

scarecrow? an artificial adversary to puff up ones importance or create a debate

scenario where none existed?

Bianca said: As for your

last statement....as I said in another post...hopelessly naive....true on

some occasions...not true on others...and really beside the point.

Again, I'm confused. If my statement was naive then it wouldn't be true ever,

yes?

What IS the point Belinda? I thought it was being able to do demonstrations /

seminars of raw milk products for money? It was assumed that a major battle

would ensue, a " first shot " was fired. And now, narry a week later, the

immovable, unreasonable bureaucracy has reversed its position, now allowing

what you wanted in the first place...

indirectly the point was finding a way for raw food buffs to follow their

interest in nutrition in face of certain government rules and regulations...

It would appear that the first Goliath that appeared, the Tenn. Government,

turned out to be a strawman..a non issue... yes?

It was not I that made it out to be an unsurmontable wall.... my attempts were

to bring it down to human scale. Now the next steps may be more difficult,,, I

can not say without trying to see what comes from initial efforts. Anyways I am

not going to create problems before they actually appear. 99% of what we fear

never happens.

So lets paly on the common theme which is finding the mechanisms to get what

we want in the marketplace. :-)

[Guest guest]

Aubin wrote:

Um, I believe The Farm is a vegan community. I

wouldn't assume they'd be willing to Help Belinda's

cause.

:-) I Know you had a coach somewhere in your past that did the stupid chalkboard

diagram on " assuming "

Yes, The Farm is primarily vegan... They are strong advocates on the whole,

using as proof they and their childrens good health after some 30 years of soy

products.

However, Vegan-what-ever wasn't my issue or my " common ground " ... It was their

experience in dealing with State regulations. My point was finding the common

areas and getting help based on that. Perhaps if we search for the common ground

in all our interactions we'll find things easier.

[Guest guest]

>...perhaps before we get too far, we may consider trying to ask the

> " power that be " about request for raw milk waiver in artisan use.

>

>It may be easier than establishing a new government (or lack of one)....

>

>just a thought :-)

Well, yes, this is the policy issue on the table, and it makes some

sense to deal with it on its own terms. However, this sounds a bit

like " Screw you, jack, I've got mine. " We can scream up and down for

our right to buy and sell raw milk, form a one-issue political

movement, and maybe even succeed...at which point the government will

say, " Since you have raw milk, you don't need food supplements any

more, so let's ban those. " As long as we're fighting symptoms instead

of the disease, we're constantly going to waste our energy fighting

a hundred small brush fires. And the disease is the Nanny State.

" Pretty please, sir, might we have a waiver so that we can sell

special fancy dairy products to yuppies? We promise we won't nourish

the poor people. " What I want to know is: there are a bunch of people

who have been maintaining that they have an absolute right to control

what goes on in their reproductive systems. How come those same

people don't have the same attitude about their digestive systems?

Why do people have to fight for the right to sell food?

[Guest guest]

>panamabob wrote:

>Vickie herself happened to do yogurt apersonally and she believes

>the product she buys comes frrom Ohio and is an organic product (non

>pasturized) but she wasn't positive.

was that your parenthesis? AFAIK, organic and non-pasteurized are

totally unrelated, and I have never seen anything but cheese that is

both organic and non-pasteurized. If it's a raw milk product from

Ohio it would either have to come from Yellow Springs, or be bootleg.

> Since we know that the Feds dont allow raw dairy to be shiped

>across state lines (correct?)

Yes.

> then perhaps the " organic " disignation is the loop hole that allows this.

I suspect that it is in fact pasteurized. Either that, or she has a

friend smuggling.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Representative government -- where many crooks get to vote

one crook into office. " --ny Hart in the comic strip " B.C. "

[Guest guest]

I think we should be able to agree that this thread has long since left the

realm of being on topic.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 12:09:46 -0400 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

how is it not the governments job?

.....to provide for the common defense... establish weights and measures

and quality guidelines for trade.

**** " quality guidelines and trade "

Where did you get this from?

Bianca

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:07:57 -0400 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

Bob wrote:

But at least you have the comfort in knowing that they are NOT out

gunning for you :-)

******Whether or not I believe that is true, I find no comfort in that

statement.

Gosh Bianca, I don't suppose you ever had someone out gunning for you,

otherwise you'ld never ever consider saying what you did. It's a

tremendous peace of mind.

+++++++++Actually I have, on several occasions. But what I meant was I

don't care if they are intentionally gunning for me or gun me

unintentionally trying to help me. I find no comfort *either way*

*****as I said in earlier post, this foaming at the mouth revolutionary

stuff is a straw man which you can then easily tear down.

Huh ? I don't understand what you mean with that? What is a

strawman? a scarecrow? an artificial adversary to puff up ones importance

or create a debate scenario where none existed?

++++++You have consistently spoke of ranting and raving, revolutionaries,

etc, clearly implying that I was acting and writing in such manner. Do I

need to repost what you wrote? That characterization is inaccurate.

Bianca said: As for your

last statement....as I said in another post...hopelessly naive....true

on

some occasions...not true on others...and really beside the point.

Again, I'm confused. If my statement was naive then it wouldn't be true

ever, yes?

+++++++++No. A person can be naive in believing that their statement

holds true all the time.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

Vickie told me she ate organic yogurt...I asked her if she knew where it came

from and if it was unpasturized...she said she wasnt sure about that the

pasturization. She did know it came from Ohio.

She also mentioned that it came in large containers (bulk?) as well as smaller

portions.

She had another person on the phone when I called so I didnt want to bother her

too much...just following up the bit of extra info she provided.

I am just looking for a place to start... please accept the information in the

spirit it was intended.

[Guest guest]

you may very well be right Jeff... but one doesnt win a fight by attacking all

places at all times. Especially against an entitty with unlimited resources like

the government.

I know whats worked for me in the past in getting change, small bites, and

before you know it the issue is gone as well as the support for that issue,,,

and then you follow that thread on down like a plow turning over the furrow on

prarie land.

" screw you, I got mine! " is pretty much what individualism is kind of about

(with out the " screw you " part) You do whats best for you,,, I do whats best

for me, and we dont worry about the next person...otherwise it becomes

" compassion " again. I know its hard to see it sometimes but everyone is best

served when they serve themselves best. Think about it in depth.

[Guest guest]

>From: " panamabob " <panamabob@...>

>Vickie herself happened to do yogurt apersonally and she believes the

>product she buys comes frrom Ohio and is an organic product (non

>pasturized) but she wasn't positive. Since we know that the Feds dont allow

>raw dairy to be shiped across state lines (correct?) then perhaps the

> " organic " disignation is the loop hole that allows this.

I'm not so sure about that. I was talking to someone at the WSDA (Washington

State Department of Agriculture), and he mentioned something about a program

which allows interstate sales of raw milk. I'm not sure whether it's true,

and I didn't quite catch the details, but I suspect that--as with most

things--it's illegal to do it by yourself but okay as long as you let the

government attach its strings.

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

[Guest guest]

-

>at which point the government will

>say, " Since you have raw milk, you don't need food supplements any

>more, so let's ban those. "

I've tried to stay out of this discussion because it could get huge and

ugly, and it's not directly about nutrition, but I guess I've reached my

limit for now. <g>

Do you really think " the government " is going to ban supplements on its

own? The entire worldwide movement to ban supplements comes from

_pharmaceutical corporations_ because they don't want people getting

healthy with supplements (and diet, I'd imagine) because that would cut

into their pharmaceutical profits. You libertarians seem to think that a

government-free society is a free society, but that's simply not

true. Government is corruptible, certainly, but it's the only force

citizens can wield against large moneyed interests. There are no

alternatives, so we either fix our government or lie prostrate before our

foes. And if you think corporations (and other moneyed interests) can't

act except through government, look at all the many, many times it's taken

_government intervention_ to halt corporate wrong-doing and take care of

bad problems.

-

[Guest guest]

>-

>

>>at which point the government will

>>say, " Since you have raw milk, you don't need food supplements any

>>more, so let's ban those. "

>

>I've tried to stay out of this discussion because it could get huge and

>ugly, and it's not directly about nutrition, but I guess I've reached my

>limit for now. <g>

And sorry, you've just made it huger and uglier. When people start

saying, " Shut up, Quick " , I'll do that, but this time you get an

answer.

>Do you really think " the government " is going to ban supplements on its

>own?

It has tried in the past...and met with enough outrage that it gave

up. I don't think the government does anything without an idea of how

it benefits itself, directly or through its friends.

> The entire worldwide movement to ban supplements comes from

>_pharmaceutical corporations_ because they don't want people getting

>healthy with supplements (and diet, I'd imagine) because that would cut

>into their pharmaceutical profits.

That's correct. Now, how would they manage this without a government

with the power to do its bidding? They could buy up and close down

supplement companies, but then others would be established. They

could strongarm drugstores into not carrying supplements (by refusing

to sell a popular drug to them unless they cleared out the

supplements), but then health food stores would get all the business.

In a state of total anarchy (not what I'm advocating) they could kill

and burn out supplement producers...and accept the consequences. None

of these acts would be anywhere near as effective as a government

ban, because a government has limitless resources. I believe that

concentrations of power are bad wherever they come from, the public

or the private sector, but that the state does more to inhibit

competition than it does to check power, and ultimately competition

is the only thing that keeps corporate power in check. I am not

making excuses for eevul corporations. But I note that incorporation

itself is a government privilege.

> You libertarians seem to think that a

>government-free society is a free society, but that's simply not

>true.

Weelll, libertarians aren't anarcho-capitalists, so that's a straw

man. I would argue that " a few simple rules " are necessary for the

social game to work...but we must keep them as minimal as possible,

> Government is corruptible, certainly, but it's the only force

>citizens can wield against large moneyed interests.

Huh? You don't wield power against large moneyed interests whenever

you buy food? They've gotten big because they are so darned

convenient.

> There are no

>alternatives,

There are lots of alternatives. You as a WAPer would know that better

than most. And to the extent that our alternatives are limited, it's

through government gang action. It would be a lot easier to make it

worth somebody's while to sell you some raw milk in a state where

they can't, if they weren't afraid of losing their livelihood.

What have you done lately to keep the GDP low? <weg>

> so we either fix our government or lie prostrate before our

>foes.

I think that if we did fix our government, our foes would be nowhere

as fearsome.

> And if you think corporations (and other moneyed interests) can't

>act except through government, look at all the many, many times it's taken

>_government intervention_ to halt corporate wrong-doing and take care of

>bad problems.

Fraud and force is fraud and force, and actionable no mater where it

comes from. Other than that, I won't address your point, because you

haven't given specifics. But as a case of corporate wrong-doing where

the correctives have come almost entirely from the market, I submit

Enron and Arthur .

[Guest guest]

I'm not but I thought I would jump in since this thread has

largely involved me <weg>

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 21:23:10 -0400 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

-

>at which point the government will

>say, " Since you have raw milk, you don't need food supplements any

>more, so let's ban those. "

-

<snip>

Do you really think " the government " is going to ban supplements on its

own?

*********No, it will only do so as a response to moneyed interests who

are able to wield the necessary influence on their own behalf or if it

believes it is in its own best interest. No government ban, no ban,

because only the gov't has the power of the gun to back up its demands

and largely unlimited resources. That is why many special interests group

look to the gov't for relief rather than compete in the marketplace of

ideas.

-

The entire worldwide movement to ban supplements comes from

_pharmaceutical corporations_ because they don't want people getting

healthy with supplements (and diet, I'd imagine) because that would cut

into their pharmaceutical profits.

*******That might be so, but that only begs the question. How is the ban

implemented in the first place? By government. Without the power of gov't

enforcement a ban would be useless.

-

You libertarians seem to think that a

government-free society is a free society, but that's simply not

true. Government is corruptible, certainly, but it's the only force

citizens can wield against large moneyed interests.

*****You are right. We get it (gov't) wielded against us every day when

we try to buy or sell raw milk or what have you. On the other hand, every

time I buy food I'm wielding power against some moneyed interest. But in

all fairness, these corporate giants are huge because people *buy* from

them, so they must be offering something that is *perceived* as valuable,

even if the only value is that I don't have to jump through a plethora of

gov't regs to get it.

Also, libertarians come in various stripes and sizes, so its not really

helpful to dump them all into one category, as there are huge differences

amongst those who have such a title. Some are minarchists, some are

anarchists, some don't really sound much different from your average

Republican. Some are left leaning, some are right leaning, some are

anti-war, some are pro-war, etc. All however believe in the rule of law

even though they disagree on how the law should be administered.

-

There are no

alternatives,

****says who? If this discussion is really of any interest to you you

might want to check out this essay:

http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

-

so we either fix our government or lie prostrate before our

foes.

****At the moment, many of us here are lying prostrate before our

government (i.e. the raw milk issue), who in such circumstances can be

perceived as our foe. Better the market than a foe who can beat you into

submission, literally and/or figuratively (like running you out of

business).

-

And if you think corporations (and other moneyed interests) can't

act except through government, look at all the many, many times it's

taken

_government intervention_ to halt corporate wrong-doing and take care of

bad problems.

******** Most of the time the latest gov't intervention is a result of

some previous intervention they made into the marketplace (Kind of like

folks chowing down on white sugar and white flour, getting health

problems, and then taking a medicine that masks the symptoms rather than

remove the root of the problem in the first place). But the market left

to itself is more than capable of taking care of problems - Enron

immediately jumps to mind.

However, no one here is talking about a lawless society, even those who

advocate for no *civil* government believe in the rule of law (just not

the rule of civil government). Using coercion and fraudulent tactics is

wrong no matter where it originates, including our own gov't.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

Bianca-

>That is why many special interests group

>look to the gov't for relief rather than compete in the marketplace of

>ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is wonderful in theory, but in practice it's a

largely a crock. Without government (anti-trust actions, for example, and

statutory limitations on concentration of power and money) the media would

be even more concentrated in the hands of the few than it already is, and

the media controls how the " ideas " in the marketplace are presented. Just

a trivial example -- a recent study showed that Zoloft and St. 's Wort

both failed to perform any better than a placebo, but CNN did a report that

focused only on supplements and implied by omission that while herbals are

ineffective, obviously prescription drugs *are* effective.

>But in

>all fairness, these corporate giants are huge because people *buy* from

>them, so they must be offering something that is *perceived* as valuable,

>even if the only value is that I don't have to jump through a plethora of

>gov't regs to get it.

And this perception is created, it doesn't arise from nowhere. I highly

recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It's all about the use of PR, the

creation of phony experts, the swaying of public opinion.

>At the moment, many of us here are lying prostrate before our

>government (i.e. the raw milk issue), who in such circumstances can be

>perceived as our foe. Better the market than a foe who can beat you into

>submission, literally and/or figuratively (like running you out of

>business).

Government of the people and by the people isn't a foe. The problem is

citizen apathy in the face of massive concerted effort and expenditure from

huge corporate interests has duped people and subverted government.

Absent strong government, people are vulnerable to all kinds of abuses we

don't see so often anymore -- company towns, for example, with company

stores and workers paid in scrip -- and which I don't want to see return.

-

[Guest guest]

At 05:39 PM 4/18/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>The marketplace of ideas is wonderful in theory, but in practice it's a

>largely a crock. Without government (anti-trust actions, for example, and

>statutory limitations on concentration of power and money) the media would

>be even more concentrated in the hands of the few than it already is, and

>the media controls how the " ideas " in the marketplace are presented. Just

>a trivial example -- a recent study showed that Zoloft and St. 's Wort

>both failed to perform any better than a placebo, but CNN did a report that

>focused only on supplements and implied by omission that while herbals are

>ineffective, obviously prescription drugs *are* effective.

In one respect, the European health system has proven more effective here.

When the government is paying for health care, they suddenly pay less

attention to the special interests. Germany did a big study on herbals

(they are cheaper to prescribe!). And Europe has been MUCH more open to the

problems of wheat intolerance (celiac) which has no prescribable drugs and

so is ignored here. I believe they are more open to small farmers too. And

the cheese is often not pastuerized (though there is, unfortunately, some

move to change that).

A big part of the problem with health care here is that it is the drug

companies that are footing much of the bill for research and most or all of

the media coverage. The rest of the media coverage comes from people with

some other product to sell (protein powders, herb capsules, Atkins bars)

who pay for the commercials on TV and magazines. The thing that impresses

me about NT (and why it may never get a huge following), is that it really

doesn't stress any commercial product, but rather stresses the process of

getting FREE from the commercial products. Which means it will probably

never get much press.

OTOH, I've taken to reading more 'alternative' research and stuff on the

'net rather than CNN, and this seems to be a trend with a lot of people. So

maybe there's hope and individual experimentation will win out after all ...

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

> In one respect, the European health system has proven more effective here.

> When the government is paying for health care, they suddenly pay less

> attention to the special interests. Germany did a big study on herbals

> (they are cheaper to prescribe!). And Europe has been MUCH more open to

the

> problems of wheat intolerance (celiac) which has no prescribable drugs and

> so is ignored here. I believe they are more open to small farmers too. And

> the cheese is often not pastuerized (though there is, unfortunately, some

> move to change that).

That is a really interesting point. As I've mentioned, I'm a libertarian

Democrat, and so socialized health care makes me *very* uncomfortable.

However, what we have now is a diseased state of affairs where the

government controls nearly everything without having the incentives

resulting from being directly responsible for the costs and effectiveness of

the system. While I still think an ideal scenario would involve a

free-market approach, I can certainly see how a more fully socialized system

may actually work better than the current system. In a sense, a more purely

socialized system would contain more free-market mechanisms than the current

system...

[Guest guest]

A very late response...sorry!

On Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:39:12 -0400 Idol <Idol@...>

writes:

Bianca-

>That is why many special interests group

>look to the gov't for relief rather than compete in the marketplace of

>ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is wonderful in theory, but in practice it's a

largely a crock. Without government (anti-trust actions, for example,

and

statutory limitations on concentration of power and money) the media

would

be even more concentrated in the hands of the few than it already is, and

the media controls how the " ideas " in the marketplace are presented.

******Hardly. The establishment continues to lose market share year after

year, and will continue to do so as long as it presents itself as

" objective " when to the astute and not so astute observer it is anything

but.

What is so exciting today is that it is possible to be fully informed on

any issue of the day and not once turn on that garbage dispenser spelled

t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n.

And, I would argue, that government actions are largely responsible for

the rather narrow ideological viewpoint one gets from the establishment

media, on every subject, including health.

And this thread has been about the heavy hand of gov't restricting our

choices when it comes to obtaining raw milk, even telling us whether we

are allowed to *give* it away. And further arguing that this is only

natural given how we support the heavy hand of gov't in other areas, thus

we should not be surprised when it hits our area.

The " marketplace of ideas " is not some seamless symmetrical entity in its

ideal state, but rather refers to the interchange and interplay of often

conflicting viewpoints (sometimes quite roughly) which gets distorted

when gov't takes a side, as all marketplace interchanges do when gov't

chooses a side, as many on this list will attest.***********

:

Just

a trivial example -- a recent study showed that Zoloft and St. 's

Wort

both failed to perform any better than a placebo, but CNN did a report

that

focused only on supplements and implied by omission that while herbals

are

ineffective, obviously prescription drugs *are* effective.

*****quite trivial actually since none of us are required to believe

anything that CNN says or act accordingly. And if we do, we do so of our

own accord, for good or bad, which is the price of liberty. You didn't

seem to buy into it, and others have that same choice as well. Not only

that, but the gov't has failed notoriously in trying to ban supplements,

so apparently not everyone is as much in the dark as you seem to

imply.************

>But in

>all fairness, these corporate giants are huge because people *buy* from

>them, so they must be offering something that is *perceived* as

valuable,

>even if the only value is that I don't have to jump through a plethora

of

>gov't regs to get it.

And this perception is created, it doesn't arise from nowhere. I highly

recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It's all about the use of PR, the

creation of phony experts, the swaying of public opinion.

*****You missed my point. Perception is a fact of life, regardless of who

is in the drivers seat, and what one perceives as valuable is subjective

in nature and can in no way be taken into account by any government

entity, since it cannot use the tools of the marketplace to determine

what people really want. Gov't does not produce, it only takes, and often

against our will.

When I spend $16 a pound to buy raw butter from out of state, that is not

because of PR, that is because of gov't regs. I perceive the value of

butter enough to do such, many others do not but might, if there was not

the heavy hand of gov't threatening people's livelihood for offering such

a product. Thus we have a gov't distortion of the marketplace, people who

might buy but don't, and others who must spend resources that might have

been better used elsewhere to obtain what the gov't has made

unnecessarily prohibitive for most.

The experts aren't the problem, gov't intrusion is the

problem.***************

>At the moment, many of us here are lying prostrate before our

>government (i.e. the raw milk issue), who in such circumstances can be

>perceived as our foe. Better the market than a foe who can beat you into

>submission, literally and/or figuratively (like running you out of

>business).

Government of the people and by the people isn't a foe. The problem is

citizen apathy in the face of massive concerted effort and expenditure

from

huge corporate interests has duped people and subverted government.

******I won't touch this one other than to say Democracy is a God that

has failed, to borrow from the title of the recent book by Hans Herman

Hoppe.************

Absent strong government, people are vulnerable to all kinds of abuses we

don't see so often anymore -- company towns, for example, with company

stores and workers paid in scrip -- and which I don't want to see return.

*****With strong *civil* government, messing around in areas far beyond

its constitutional limits, people are subject to all kinds of abuse,

including being told you can't even give your products away, which is how

this whole thread got started in the first place.

As in the previous paragraph, I won't address your example since it would

lead us to places we need not go on this list. But the issue of raw

animal foods and gov't is a live one on this list, and I'm sure one we

will return to in the future, but until then you can have the last word.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/3/2002 6:24:51 PM Central Daylight Time, r_rom@...

writes:

> I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

> supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

> 2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

>

> Roman

>

Sure is a good reason to " grow your own " <G> brings out the hold hippy in me.

Belinda

[Guest guest]

--- bianca3@... wrote:

> the gov't has failed notoriously in trying

> to ban supplements,

> so apparently not everyone is as much in the dark as

> you seem to

> imply.************

>

I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

At 03:50 PM 5/3/2002 -0700, you wrote:

>I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

>supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

>2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

>

>Roman

When I was over in Switzerland 20 years ago, it was next to impossible to

get vitamins. They HAD them, but you had to talk to the pharmacist and

explain your condition, why you would need extra vitamins. Since I didn't

speak French, this was difficult! Basically they regarded vitamins and

herbs as drugs.

On the other hand, the doctors do prescribe herbs, the ones that have been

studied and found effective, and they have herb pills with regulated doses.

I guess it's all part of the socialized medicine conundrum: if the

government pays the medical bills, they also feel they can control what you

take.

Heidi Schuppenhauer

Trillium Custom Software Inc.

heidis@...

[Guest guest]

>I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

>supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

>2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

****The FDA is *at this very moment* trying to ban supplements for pets.

I guess pentobarbitol (euthanasia drug) in pet food is OK, but giving your

dog glucosamine for joint problems is dangerous...

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

[Guest guest]

Suze-

>I guess pentobarbitol (euthanasia drug) in pet food is OK, but giving your

>dog glucosamine for joint problems is dangerous...

Damn straight! Why, you might take that glucosamine yourself, and then,

and then, why, your joints might feel better!

-

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 3 May 2002 15:50:07 -0700 (PDT) Roman <r_rom@...> writes:

--- bianca3@... wrote:

> the gov't has failed notoriously in trying

> to ban supplements,

> so apparently not everyone is as much in the dark as

> you seem to

> imply.************

>

I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

Roman

*****Thanks Roman,

I'm somewhat aware of the problems in Europe. I was actually referring to

the efforts or our own government.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 4 May 2002 08:25:55 -0400 " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

writes:

>I believe that has happened in Europe -- many

>supplements and herbs are practially banned. Starting

>2004 if I am mistaken. Not arguing anything, just FYI.

****The FDA is *at this very moment* trying to ban supplements for pets.

I guess pentobarbitol (euthanasia drug) in pet food is OK, but giving

your

dog glucosamine for joint problems is dangerous...

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

*****A friend of mine is writing an article tentatively titled, Abolish

the FDA. I will post the weblink when it appears.

Bianca