Raw Milk: An Examination of the Reasons for its Disparate Treatment In the United States and Canada

BY: CHRISTINE ARENA

DECEMBER 2009

PREPARED AS AN ACADEMIC REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW COURSE AT THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITYS DICKINSON SCHOOL OF LAW FALL SEMESTER 2009

I.Introduction. Rawmilkreferstothelactealsecretionsofvariousanimalssuchascows,goats,and

sheepthatarenotpasteurized.Pasteurization1isaprocessthatkillsharmfulbacteriaby heatingmilktoaspecifictemperatureforasetperiodoftime.2Pasteurizationalso extendsshelflifeanddestroyspathogens.3Rawmilkisalsonothomogenizedorcombined withanyadditives.4 RawmilkisverycontroversialintheUnitedStatesandCanada.5Bothfederal governmentshavedeclaredthatitisunsafeforhumanconsumption.6Bothareconcerned withSalmonella,Listeria,andE.coli,whichcanbepresentinunpasteurizedmilkand allegedlycausesnumerousseriousillnesseseveryyear.7However,ontheothersideofthe debatethereareseveralspecialinterestgroupsandindividualswhocontendthatrawmilk 1LouisPasteurdevelopedpasteurizationin1864.FDA,TheDangersofRawMilk: UnpasteurizedMilkCanPoseaSeriousHealthRisk,availableat http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm079516.htm(lastvisited Dec.9,2009).
2FDA,QuestionsandAnswers:RawMilk(Mar.1,2007),availableat

http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/Product SpecificInformation/MilkSafety/ucm122062.htm(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
3AmericanDairyAssociation&DairyCouncilofNebraska,RawMilkFactSheet,available

athttp://www.nebmilk.org/familyhealth/dairyfactsheets.php(lastvisitedDec.4,2009).
4Rawmilk.org,AboutRawMilk,availableathttp://www.rawmilk.org/rawmilk.php(last

visitedDec.9,2009).
5MostEuropeanandAsiancountriesdrinkmilkunpasteurizedandthereislittletono

argumenttodootherwise.
6Supranote1;HealthCanada,StatementfromHealthCanadaAboutDrinkingRawMilk,

availableathttp://www.hcsc.gc.ca/fnan/securit/factsfaits/rawmilklaitcrueng.php (lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
7Id.

isnotonlysafe,butalsohealthierthanpasteurizedmilk.8Theyclaimthatrawmilkhas healingpowersandbeneficialbacteriaandthatitispasteurizedmilkthatcontainsahostof risks.9 RawmilkisregulatedinboththeUnitedStatesandCanada.However,itistreated verydifferentlyineachcountry.TheUnitedStatesprohibitsrawmilkfrombeing transportedininterstatecommerce,whichallowstheindividualstatesdiscretionon regulatingrawmilkwithineachstate.Inotherwords,eachstatecandecidewhetherto prohibitorpermitrawmilk.Canadaprohibitsthesaleofrawmilkanywhereinthenation. Thus,inCanada,rawmilkisbannedonanationallevelandtheprovinceshavenoauthority tosayotherwise. Thereareverystrongargumentsoneachsideoftherawmilkdebate.However,the federalgovernmentsofboththeUnitedStatesandCanadaagreethatrawmilkisdangerous andathreattopublichealth.ThatleavesthequestionofwhytheUnitedStatesdecidedto allowittoberegulatedbythestatesandCanadachosetoprohibititonafederallevel. Thereareseveralpossibilitiesforthisdivergence.Thispaperwillexplorefiveoptions:(1) Federalism,(2)Popularityofrawmilk,(3)SpecialInterestGroupsandLobbying,(4) GovernmentalStructure,and(5)HistoricalandCulturalValues. Rawmilkisasignificantissueinbothnations.Rawmilkhasbeenmakingheadlines inCanadarecentlybecauseofthegovernmentsreactiontoMichaelSchmidt,arawmilk 8NaturalNews.com,RawMilkisCompleteandBalancedFood,availableat http://www.naturalnews.com/026280.html(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
9Id.

farmer.Hisfarmwasraidedafteran18monthinvestigationthatuncoveredthatSchmidt wasillegallysellingrawmilk.10Itisexpectedthattheresultsofthetrialwillbeannounced inJanuary2010.11IntheUnitedStates,rawmilkhasbeeninthenewsasseveralstates considermakingchangestotheirrawmilklegislation.12Inaddition,therehasbeena federalproposaltoendtheban.13Asneighboringnations,theUnitedStatesandCanada oftenlooktotheotherandtherefore,whatonedecidesontherawmilkissuemay ultimatelyinfluencetheother. II.TheCurrentStatusoftheLaw. A.TheUnitedStates. TheUnitedStatesCongressisenabledtoregulateproductsininterstatecommerce throughthebroadlanguageoftheCommerceClause.14Inthisinstance,thelegislaturehas 10RealMilk.com,TheIncredibleStoryofMichaelandDorotheaSchmidtandRealMilkin Canada,availableathttp://www.realmilk.com/realmilkcanada.html(lastvisitedDec.9, 2009).
11TheBovine,RawmilkaCharterofRightsandFreedomsissueKarenSelick,Canadian

ConstitutionFoundation,availableathttp://thebovine.wordpress.com/(lastvisitedDec.9, 2009). legalizethesaleofrawmilk.MeredithCohn,RawMilkDebate,BALTIMORESUN,Feb.16,2009.

12Forinstance,Marylandhashadbillsproposedallowingcowshareprogramsandto

13TheLibraryofCongress,THOMAS,availableathttp://thomas.loc.gov/,searchbybill

numberH.R.778.
14[TheCongressshallhavepower]Toregulatecommercewithforeignnations,and

amongtheseveralstates,andwiththeIndiantribes,U.S.CONST.art.I,8,cl.3. 4

delegatedauthorityforproductsundertheFederalFood,Drug,andCosmeticsAct15tobe regulatedbytheFoodandDrugAdministration(FDA).16Congress,throughtheagency,has adutytoprotectconsumersfrommisleadingproducts,aswasdemonstratedinCarolene Products.17There,theCourtexplained: WhenCongressexercisesadelegatedpowersuchasthatoverinterstatecommerce, themethods,whichitemploystocarryoutitspurposes,arebeyondattackwithout aclearandconvincingshowingthatthereisnorationalbasisforthelegislation;that itisanarbitraryfiat.Id.at3132. SimilarrationalesforwhythefilledmilkinCaroleneProductswasbannedfrominterstate commercehavebeenappliedtorawmilk.Thegovernmentcontendsthatthebanonraw milkhasnothingtodowithcompetitioninthedairyindustry.18Additionally,aswillbe explainedlater,thereisafearthatrawmilkcouldbeconfusedwithpasteurizedmilkand thatlabelingdoesnotadequatelyremedytheissue.19Therefore,thereisarationalbasis forthefederalbanonrawmilkininterstatecommerce.

1521U.S.C.300etseq.
1642U.S.C.216,243,264,271. 17CaroleneProductsCo.etal.v.UnitedStates,323U.S.18,65S.Ct.1. 18Althoughitdoesnotexplicitlystatethatindustrycompetitionisnotthereasonbehind

theban,itcanbeinferredfromthetext.RequirementsAffectingRawMilkforHuman ConsumptioninInterstateCommerce,52Fed.Reg.29,509(DeptofHealth&HumanServ. Aug.10,1987).

19RequirementsAffectingRawMilkforHumanConsumptioninInterstateCommerce,52

Fed.Reg.at29,513. 5

Theprohibitiononrawmilkininterstatecommerceisafederalregulation.The FoodandDrugAdministrationpromulgatedit.FDAisabranchoftheDepartmentof HealthandHumanServices.FDAistaskedwithprotectingandadvancingthepublichealth byassuringthesafetyoffood,drugs,andmedicaldevices.20 Beforeanagencycanissuearule,itmustgothroughthenoticeandcomment process.TheagencypostsnoticeoftheproposedrulemakingintheFederalRegister.The publicisthenallowedtocommentontheproposal.Theagencymustacknowledgeany relevantcommentsmadebythepublic.Anoticeofthefinalruleisalsopublished.21 FDAsproposaltorequireallmilkshippedininterstatecommercetobepasteurized waspublishedintheFederalRegisteronSeptember9,1972.22FDAexplainedthatit believedthattheonlywaytodestroypathogenmicroorganismsfoundinmilkwasthrough pasteurization.23FDAexplainedthatthelegalbasisfortheruleisthePublicHealthService Act24andtheFederalFood,Drug,andCosmeticAct.25ThePublicHealthServiceAct authorizestheDepartmentofHealthandHumanServicestomakeandenforcesuch regulationsasarenecessarytopreventtheintroduction,transmission,orspreadof 20FDA,Centers&Offices,availableat http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/default.htm(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
21KEITHWERHAN,PRINCIPLESOFADMINISTRATIVELAW310(2008). 22MilkandCream,37Fed.Reg.18,392(DeptofHealth,Education,andWelfareSept.9,

1972).

23Milk,LowfatMilk,andSkimMilk,PasteurizationRequirementsforMilkProductsfor

ConsumerUse,52Fed.Reg.29,509(DeptofHealthandHumanServ.Aug.10,1987).

2442U.S.C.216,243,264,and271. 2521U.S.C.300etseq.

communicablediseasefromforeigncountriesintothestatesorfromonestateintoanother state.26Priortotherawmilkregulation,onlyfiveproductswereprohibitedundertheAct: shellfish,turtles,psittacinebirds,latherbrushes,andgarbage.27TheportionoftheFood, Drug,andCosmeticActthatauthorizesregulationofrawmilkallowsforthecontrolof adulteratedfoods.28 IntheFederalRegister,FDAaddressedthecommentsofoneopponentoftheban. SteuvesNatural(formerlyAltaDenaDairy)providedseveralreasonswhyFDAshouldnot bancertifiedrawmilk.SteuveclaimedthatFDAwassinglingoutrawmilkfor unwarranted,selectivetreatmentbypublichealthauthoritiesbecauseotherreadyto consumefoodsare,naturallyorbyvirtueofcrosscontamination,majorsourcesofdisease andarenotsubjecttostrictGovernmentregulations.Steuvewentontoexplainthat contaminatedpasteurizedmilkposedamuchgreaterriskthanunpasteurizedmilk. Additionally,Stuevequestionedwhetherpasteurizationsignificantlydecreasestheamount ofnegativemicroorganismsinmilk.29FDAfoundallofSteuvesremarkstobe unconvincingbecauseitfeltthattheknown,documentedhealthrisksassociatedwith theconsumptionofrawmilkweremorepersuasive.30TheCenterforDiseaseControland

2642U.S.C.264(a)
2721C.F.R.1240.65;21C.F.R.1240.62;21C.F.R.1240.65;21C.F.R.1240.70;21C.F.R.

1240.75.

2821U.S.C.342. 29Milk,LowfatMilk,andSkimMilk,PasteurizationRequirementsforMilkProductsfor

ConsumerUse,52Fed.Reg.at29,511.

30Id.

Prevention31alsostatedthatotherreadytoconsumefoodsofdomesticanimaloriginare subjectedtoprocessingproceduresdesignedtorenderthemsafeforconsumptionandare microbiologicallymonitoredforadequacyofprocessing.32 FDAalsoaddressedaproposedalternativetotheban.Anunidentifiedparty suggestedthattheFDAlabelrawmilktoensurethatconsumerswereinformedofthe inherentrisksofingestingrawmilk.However,FDAfoundthatlabelingwouldbe ineffectivebecauseitistraditionallyintendedtowarnagainstmisuseorabuse,butinthe caseofrawmilkthedangerswerearesultofcustomaryuse.33FDAaddedthattheparties thataremostatriskofgettingsickfromrawmilk,theelderlyandchildren,werethemost likelynottohavetheabilityoropportunitytoreadthelabeling.34 Theregulationsmovementthroughtheadministrativeprocessallowedalotof insightintotheFDAsreasonsforbanningrawmilk.However,itwasntuntilFDAs decisionwaschallengedincourtthatalloftherelevantinformationwasmadeavailable.35 TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtoftheDistrictofColumbiareviewedtherulebanning interstatesalesofrawmilk.36ThecasewasbroughtbeforetheCourtbecauseFDAhad 31TheCenterforDiseaseControlandPreventionispartoftheDepartmentofHealthand HumanServices.CDC,AboutCDCOrganization,availableat http://www.cdc.gov/about/organization/cio.htm(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
32Milk,LowfatMilk,andSkimMilk,PasteurizationRequirementsforMilkProductsfor

ConsumerUse,52Fed.Reg.at29,512.
33Id.at29,513. 34Id. 35PublicCitizenv.Heckler,653F.Supp.1229(1986). 36TheAdministrativeProcedureAct,5U.S.C.701706(1982)governsjudicialreviewof

agencydecisions.

failedtofinalizetheruleitproposedin1972.Theplaintiffs,apublicinterestorganization knownasPublicCitizen,broughtanactiontocompelthethirteenyearpendingrulemaking proceedingtorequirethatallmilkandmilkproductssoldininterstatecommercebe pasteurized.Intheopinion,theCourtaddressedthereasonsenumeratedbyFDAfor banningtheinterstatetransportationofrawmilk.TheCourtrejectedthatafederal regulationwasnotproper.Italsostateditisundisputedthatalltypesofrawmilkare unsafeforhumanconsumptionandposeasignificanthealthrisk.37TheCourtheldthat FDAwastobecompelledtopromulgatetheregulationprohibitingrawmilkininterstate commercebecauseoftheoverwhelmingevidenceindicatingthatitwasnecessaryto protectpublichealth.TheCourtalsofoundthatarulebanningtheintrastateshipmentof rawmilkwouldnotbenecessarytocarryoutaninterstateban.FDAalsoagreedthatthe federalinterstatebanwasthebestwaytodealwiththeproblemscausedbyrawmilkand theappropriatewaytouseFederalresources.38Allofthatresultedinthecurrent regulationpertainingtorawmilkininterstatecommercewhichisentitled:Mandatory pasteurizationforallmilkandmilkproductsinfinalpackageformintendedfordirect humanconsumptionandstates: No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, otherwise distribute, or hold for sale of other distribution after shipment in interstate commerce any milk or milk product in final package form for direct humanconsumptionunlesstheproducthasbeenpasteurizedorismadefromdairy 37PublicCitizen,653F.Supp.at1241.
38Milk,LowfatMilk,andSkimMilk,PasteurizationRequirementsforMilkProductsfor

ConsumerUse,52Fed.Reg.at29,513. 9

ingredients (milk or milk products) that have all been pasteurized, except where alternativeproceduresforpasteurizationareprovidedforbyregulation.39 Somefarmershavedevisedwhatisknownascowsharingtocircumventthe prohibitiononthesaleofrawmilkintheirstates.Cowsharingisasystemwhereafarmer ownsaherdofcowsandallowspeopletobuyaportionoftheherd.Insomecases,the farmisconsideredacooperative.Memberspayfortheupkeepofthelandandanimalsin exchangefortheproductsproduced,includingrawmilk.Thissystemispermittedinsome states,however,othershaveruledagainstit.InOyarzov.MarylandDepartmentofHealth andHygiene,40theMarylandAppellateCourtheldthattheDepartmentofHealthand MentalHygieneactedwithinitsauthoritywhenitprohibitedrawmilkdistributionplans. ItwasillegaltosellrawmilkinMarylandatthetimeofthecontroversy.41Inthatcase,a dairyfarmersoldfractionalinterestsinhisdairyherd.Theagistorfeeswereexchangedfor rawmilk.42 ClearlytheUnitedStatesgovernmentfeelsthattheconsumptionofrawmilkisvery dangerousforhumans.Thus,thispaperwillexplorevariousreasonsforwhytheUnited Statesgovernmentallowsregulationofrawmilkonastatelevel.Therearebasicallyfour differentwaysthattheindividualstateshavedecidedtoregulaterawmilk.Somehave 3921C.F.R.1240.61.
40187Md.App.264,978A.2d804(2009). 41ItisstillillegaltosellrawmilkinMaryland;however,thestateiscurrentlyconsidering

changingthelaw.MeredithCohn,RawMilkDebate,BALTIMORESUN,Feb.16,2009.
42Anagistorisonewhochargestotakeincattleownedpartiallyorinwholebysomeone

elseandcareforthem. 10

banneditcompletely,someallowitinlimitedproductssuchasrawcheesesandyogurt, somecompletelyallowit,andsomeonlyallowitifthepersondrinkingthemilkownsthe cow.TheoveralltrendswillbediscussedfullyinsectionIV. B.Canada. TheCanadiangovernmenthastheauthoritytomakeillegalthemanufactureorsale

ofdangerousproducts,adulteratedproductsormisbrandedproducts.43Thispoweris grantedbys.91(27)oftheCharter,whichallowspunishmentforconductthatisdangerous tohumanhealth,knownasthecriminallawpower.TheSupremeCourtofCanadacase, MargarineReference,reaffirmedthatadangerousproductsatisfiestherequirementofa typicallycriminalpublicpurpose.44Inthatcase,theCourtrejectedabanonmargarine becauseitfoundthattheproductwasnotunsafe.Therealintentionofthebanwasto produceaneconomicbenefittocompetitors.MargarineReferencealsohold(s)by implicationthatthemanufactureandsaleoffoodanddrugsmayberegulatedprovincially ascomingwithinpropertyandcivilrightsintheprovinceunders.92(13).45However, currentlyitisregulatedfederally. TheFoodandDrugsAct46authorizesthebanonrawmilkinCanada.47The prohibitionofrawmilkisafederalregulationthatisadministeredbyHealthCanada. 43R.v.Wetmore,2S.C.R.284(1983).
44S.C.R.1(1949). 45PETERW.HOGG,CONSTITUTIONALLAWOFCANADA,497(2006). 46R.S.,1985,c.F27.availableathttp://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/F27/(lastvisitedDec.2,

2009).
47C.R.C.1978,c.870,Pt.B,Div.8,B.08.002.2.

11

HealthCanadadescribesitselfas,theFederaldepartmentresponsibleforhelping Canadiansmaintainandimprovetheirhealth,whilerespectingindividualchoicesand circumstances.48HealthCanadahasexplainedthatitsreasonforcompletelybanningraw milkistoprotectCanadians.Itsprimaryconcernsarethebacteriainrawmilkthat pasteurizationwouldkillorminimize.Mostnotably,HealthCanadaisconcernedabout Salmonella,E.coliandListeria.Itbelievesthatanyperceivedhealthbenefitsof consumingrawmilkisgreatlyoutweighedbytherisks.49Oddly,HealthCanadahaschosen nottooutlawunpasteurizedjuice,althoughitwarnsagainstitsconsumption.Ithasfound similarriskswithunpasteurizedjuiceaswithrawmilk.50 Canadahastakenastrongstanceinenforcingthebanonrawmilk.TheFoodand DrugsAct51givesthepowertoseizeanddetainforsuchtimeasmaybenecessaryany articlebymeansoforinrelationtowhichtheinspectorbelievesonreasonablegrounds anyprovisionofthisActortheregulationshasbeencontravened.52Thispowerwas exercisedtothefullextendwhentheMinistryofNaturalResources,ProvincialMinistryof Agriculture,MinistryofHealth,thelocalHealthunit,theMinistryofFinanceandthe 48HealthCanada,AboutHealthCanada,availableathttp://www.hcsc.gc.ca/ahcasc/index eng.php(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
49HealthCanada,TheGovernmentofCanadaRemindsCanadiansAbouttheRisksof

DrinkingRawMilk(Aug.20,2009),availableathttp://www.hcsc.gc.ca/indexeng.php, enterrawmilkinsearchfield(lastvisitedDec.9,2009). DrinkingUnpasteurizedFruitJuiceandCider(Oct.13,2009),availableathttp://www.hc sc.gc.ca/indexeng.php,enterunpasteurizedjuiceinsearchfield(lastvisitedDec.9, 2009).

50HealthCanada,TheGovernmentofCanadaRemindsCanadiansAbouttheRisksof

51Supra,note47. 52R.S.,1985,c.F27,s.23(1)(d).

12

CanadianFoodInspectionAgencyraidedMichaelSchmidtsfarm.Theyarrivedwith25 armedofficerswhoconfiscateddairyproductsandequipment.MichaelSchmidtreceived 20chargesundertheHealthProtectionandPromotionActandtheMilkAct.53 III.Federalism. BoththeUnitedStatesandCanadaarefederations.However,variationsintheir structuresoffederalismarenotthereasonthattheydealwithrawmilkdifferentlyfrom eachother.Legally,theUnitedStatescouldhavecompletelyprohibitedrawmilkthrougha federalregulationratherthanpermittedthestatestoeachdecide.FDAhasexpressly avoidedregulatingrawmilkinintrastatecommerce,[therefore]thereisnofederal supremacyissuetohamperthestatesallowanceofrawmilksales.54However,nothing prohibitstheUnitedStatesgovernmentfromdecidingtofederallybanrawmilk.Theonly reasonarticulatedbythegovernmentfornotdoingsowaspresentedinPublicCitizenv. Heckler.Inthatcase,theCourtstated,decisionsoninterstatebansshouldbelefttothe states,sincesuchbansdonotenhancetheeffectivenessofaninterstateban.55Thus,it appears,thattheUnitedStatesreasonwasapolicydecisionnotrequiredbyfederalism. Similarly,Canadacouldhavehandledrawmilkdifferently.TheCanadian governmentdidnotneedtofindrawmilktobedangerousandcompletelybanitunderthe criminallawpower.Theprovinceswouldthenhavebeenabletodecidewhetherto 53TheBovine,ABriefHistoryofRawMilkinOntario,availableat http://thebovine.wordpress.com/(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
54DamianC.Adamsetal.,DejaMu:IstheReturntoPublicSaleofRawMilkUdderNonsense?

13DRAKEJ.AGRIC.L.305,314(2008).

55PublicCitizenv.Heckler,653F.Supp.1229(1986).

13

prohibitorpermitrawmilkwithintheirownboundaries.Itcouldhavenotbanneditatall bynotdeclaringittobedangerous.Canadaalsocouldhavejustbannedrawmilkininter provincialcommercebutallowedtheindividualprovincestoregulateitintraprovince (possiblythroughthepropertyandcivilrightspowersoftheprovinces).Finally,itcould haveprovidedthatrawmilknotbesoldininterprovincialcommerceifthereceiving provincedidntallowitusingthetradeandcommercepower.56 Giventhatthereweresomanyalternatives,itisclearthatapolicychoicewasmade whenCanadadecidedtodeclarerawmilkunsafe.LiketheUnitedStates,itwasnotbound byfederalism.Thus,theremustbeanotherexplanationfortheincongruentapproachesfor regulatingrawmilkintheUnitedStatesandCanada. IV.PopularityofRawMilk. Animportantquestioninthisdiscussioniswhetherthereisanationalconsensuson

rawmilkineithercountry.TheanswercouldexplainwhytheUnitedStatesallowsthe statestoregulateitwhenCanadahasfederallybannedit.IfAmericansweresplitonthe issue,aworkablesolutionforthefederalgovernmentwouldbetoleaveittothestatesto decide.Ontheotherhand,ifevenjustafewAmericanswereadamantaboutrawmilkand thefederalgovernmentdidnotwanttobethepartytodisappointthem,leavingthe decisionforthestatesalsowouldhavebeenanadequatesolutioninthosecircumstances. IftherearejustnotmanyCanadiansinterestedinrawmilkorthosethatareinterestedare 56EmailfromStephenRoss,ProfessorofLaw,PennStateLaw,toChristineArena,Student ofLaw,PennStateLaw(Dec.6,2009,10:59:00EST)(onfilewithauthor). 14

notvocalenoughthenperhapsthatiswhythefederalgovernmentissuedanationwide ban. A.TheUnitedStates. ThereareseveralindicationsofthepopularityofrawmilkintheUnitedStatesthat

thispaperwilladdress.First,amajorityofthestatesallowthesaleofrawmilk.Second, therearelegislativeproposalstoliftthefederalinterstateban.Finally,thereexistsa myriadofenthusiasticinterestgroupsandindividualsinsupportofrawmilk. Twentyeightstatesallowthesaleofrawmilkforhumanconsumption.Fiveallowit

foranimalconsumption.Therearealsostatesthatdonotpermitthesaleofrawmilkbut condonecowshares.57Evenifthelattergroupisnotincluded,amajorityofthestates allowrawmilkforsaleinsomecapacity. Aspreviouslymentioned,abillwasproposedtoallowthetransferofrawmilk

throughinterstatecommerce.OnJanuary28,2009,HouseRepresentativeRonPaul(RTX) introducedH.R.778toeliminatethebanontheinterstatecommerceofrawmilk.58Thebill isentitledToauthorizetheinterstatetrafficofunpasteurizedmilkandmilkproductsthat arepackagedfordirecthumanconsumption.ItisawaitingreviewbytheHouse CommitteeonEnergyandCommerce.59Thereismuchsupportforthebill,including 57Realmilk.com,WhatsHappeningwithRealMilk?,availableat http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).

58TheLibraryofCongress,THOMAS,availableathttp://thomas.loc.gov/,searchbybill

numberH.R.778.

59Id.

15

FarmtoConsumerLegalDefenseFundspetitionurgingsupporterstoencouragetheir localrepresentativestobecomecosponsorsofthebill.60 ItisclearthatrawmilkhasgainedattentionandprominenceintheUnitedStates.

TheNewYorkTimeshaswrittenseveralarticlesonthematter.61NumerousWebsiteshave beenlaunchedforthesolepurposeofpromotingrawmilk.Thereareconsumersthatrisk theirfarmsandtheirreputationstopursuerawmilk.Thenumberofunderground,black marketrawmilkringshasbeengrowingintheStates.62Websitesontheissueinclude Realmilk.com,Rawmilk.org,andRawmilkfacts.com.Therearealsowellknown organizationsbehindrawmilksuchastheWestonA.PriceFoundationandtheFarmto ConsumerLegalDefenseFund.63Itseemsthatrawmilkispopularinspiteofthewarnings ofthegovernment.64 B.Canada CanadianofficialsseemreluctanttoevenacknowledgethatCanadianshaveany

interestinrawmilk.AtaconferencefortheInternationalAssociationofFoodProtection, whichwasheldinCanada,arepresentativefromAgCanadaspokeforthreeminutesand 60FarmtoConsumerLegalDefenseFund,HelpHR778GetCoSponsorstoEndRawMilk Ban,availableathttp://www.ftcldf.org/petitions/pnum987.php(lastvisitedDec.10, 2009).

61JoeDrape,ShouldThisMilkBeLegal?,NEWYORKTIMES,Aug.8,2007;JanEllenSpiegel,

MakingTheirCaseForRawMilk,NEWYORKTIMES,Feb.24,2008;HillaryBrenhouse,Raw MilkSalesCouldInvigorateU.S.DairyFarm,NEWYORKTIMES,Nov.16,2009.

62ThomasBartlett,TheRawDeal,WASHINGTONPOST,Oct.1,2006. 63BothofthoseorganizationsshowtheirsupportonRealmilk.com. 64AddieBroyles,Austin360.com,RawmilkpopulardespiteFDAworries,May13,2009.

16

saidthatrawmilkwillneverbeallowedinCanada.65TherearemanyCanadianswhohope thatstatementisincorrect.Aprovincebyprovinceanalysisoftheopinionsofrawmilk revealsalotofconsumerandproducersupportandinterestintheproduct. ThepopularityofrawmilkinCanadaisalsoevidentthroughthenumberofcow

sharesthathavedevelopedrecently.Thereisonecowsharethatboaststhatitprovides rawmilkforover300familiesfromChilliwacktoVancouver.66Itisalsothebiggestcow shareinCanadaandisabletosellrawmilkforthreetimesmorethanwhathomogenized milkcosts.Theyareabletodothisbecausetheircustomersareinformedaboutthe benefitsofrawmilkandthemisinformationprovidedbythegovernmentandwillingto payextraforwhattheyconsidertobeasuperiorproduct.67Inaddition,therehavebeen reportsofblackmarketsforrawmilkinCanada,whicharecontinuingtogrow.68 Theonlyoppositiontorawmilkthatcouldbefoundineithercountrywasbythe

federalgovernmentandthemilkindustry.Itseemsthesupportforrawmilkisaboutequal inbothcountries.Thus,thequestionofwhyrawmilkreceivesdissimilartreatmentineach countrystillremains. V.SpecialInterestsGroupsandLobbying. 65TimWightman,RawMilkrepresentedatthe93rdAnnualConferenceoftheIAFP,available athttp://www.realmilk.com/iafpconference.html(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).

66Bovinity,LegalwaytogetREALMILKinBC(Dec.4,2009),availableat

http://www.freewebs.com/bovinity/(lastvisitedDec.9,2009).
67TheBovine,TheeconomicsofcowsharesinCanadaandgoodnewsforCalgarymilk

lovers,availableathttp://thebovine.wordpress.com/(lastvisitedDec.10,2009).

68JenniferTryon,BlackmarketforrawmilkgrowinginCanada,CTVNEWS,Dec.18,2002.

17

ItisimportanttounderstandhowabillbecomesalawinCanadatofully

comprehendhowlobbyingworksonthefederallevelinCanada.Althoughofficiallythe GovernorGeneralappointsmembersofthecoreexecutiveorCabinet,thePrimeMinister adviseshimand,therefore,isthedefactoappointer.Abillisthenintroduced,oftenbya memberoftheCabinet.TheCabinetCommitteethenconsidersthebill.OncetheCabinet approvesthebill,itissenttotheHouseofCommons.ThePrimeMinisterimposesparty disciplineontheMembersofParliament(MPs).OncetheHouseapprovesthebillitissent totheSenate.TheSenateapprovesitalthoughthisactionismoreofatraditionalgesture thanavaluableapprovalanditdoesnotalwaysoccur.Finally,theGovernorGeneral,the Crownsrepresentative,approvesthebillifthePrimeMinisterisstillinpower.The individualMPshavelittlesayduetotheheavyinfluenceofthePrimeMinister.Therefore, themostefficientrouteforalobbyistinCanadaistopersuadeMPstosupporthercauseso thattheycanconvincethePrimeMinisterandCabinetministerstoalsogetonboard. Basically,lobbyistsmuststartfromthebottomupandhopethatlowermemberswillkeep totheirpromisestopersuadethoserankedabovethem.69 LobbyingisnotablydifferentintheUnitedStates.Thedifferenceshavebeen

attributedtothenatureofsociety,relationshipsbetweenprivategroupsandthestate,the structureofauthorityandtheroleofpoliticalelites.70Intermsofsocialtheory,Canadais consideredaconsensualmodel,whereastheUnitedStatesisconflictmodel.Thatmeans 69GovernmentofCanada,HowaGovernmentBillbecomesLaw,availableathttp://dsp psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Reference/queense.html(lastvisitedDec.10,2009).

70RobertPresthus,InterestGroupLobbying:CanadaandtheUnitedStates,ANNALSOFTHE

AMERICANACADEMYOFPOLITICALANDSOCIALSCIENCE,Vol.413,InterestGroupsinInternational Perspective,4457,45(May,1974). 18

thatprivategroupsinCanadaareconsideredtobeequallylegitimatetothegovernment whenitcomestomakingproperpolicydecisions.IntheUnitedStates,governmentis lookedatassomealienapparatusrequiringconstantsurveillancebyoutsiders.71The conflictmodelrequiresthatgroupscompetetohavetheirinterestsaddressedandvoices heard. Thestructureofauthorityandtheroleofpoliticalelitesalsoexplainshowlobbying

inthetwonationsdiffers.Although,thereisalsopartyaffiliationintheUnitedStates, CongressmembersarenotasexpectedtovoteonpartylinesasisthecaseinCanada. SenatorsandHouseRepresentativeshavemoreleewaytovoteindividuallythanMPs. Additionally,inCanadacitizensgivefullpowerofattorneytoasmallcommitteeeachfour yearsorso,wellknowingthatvirtuallynothinghecandointheintervalwillhavemuch effectonthegrouptowhohehasgivenhisblankcheck.72Canadassystem,modeledafter theBritishParliamentarysystem,allowsthemajoritygovernmenttotakeunpopular actions.Theymaynotbereelectedbutitisrareforthenextgovernmenttoreversetheir policies.73Furthermore,thesystemofinterestgrouppoliticsismorefullydevelopedin theUnitedStates.74Allofthosefactorsmakelobbyingmoreeffectiveforgroupsinthe UnitedStatesthaninCanada.Nonetheless,thereareotherfactorsthatimpacttheanalysis ofthedissimilartreatmentofrawmilkinCanadaandtheUnitedStates. 71Id.
72A.R.Lower,CanadiansintheMaking,281(1958). 73MICHAELADAMS,FIREANDICE:THEUNITEDSTATES,CANADA,ANDTHEMYTHOFCONVERGING

VALUES,110(2003).

74Presthus,supranote64,at57.

19

VI.GovernmentalStructure. AnotherreasonthattheUnitedStatesmayhavepuntedtheregulationofrawmilk

tothestatesisthetraditionalrespectfortheautonomyofthestates.TheU.S.Constitution providesthatallpowersnotenumeratedtothefederalgovernmentarelefttothestates. AlexanderHamiltonemphasizedtheimportanceofthestatesmaintainingtheir individualityandautonomyintheFederalistPapers33.Eachstateisrecognizedashaving itsowntraditions,values,andculture.Eachevenhasitsownconstitutionwith independentandenhancedprotectionsforcivilliberties.Inaddition,theUnitedStateshas recognizedtheroleofthestatesaslaboratories.Thisencouragesstatestoexperiment withdifferentlawsandregulationstoseehowtheywouldworkbeforeapplyingthemona nationalscale. TheBritishNorthAmericanActformedastrongcentralgovernmentforCanada.

UnliketheUnitedStatesConstitution,theActgiveslimitedpowertotheprovinces,leaving whatisnotenumeratedtothefederalgovernment.75ResidualpowerintheU.S.goestothe states.Thisapproachfavorspowerinthefederalgovernmentovertheprovinces.Itmay provideinsightastowhyCanadahasdecidedtoregulaterawmilkfederally.Inaddition,it hasbeensaidthatwithfewexceptions,thereisnoreasontobelievethattheCanadian federalgovernmentwillbemoreorlesshospitabletotherightsofcitizensthanprovincial governments.76ThisisquitetheoppositeintheUnitedStates.Mostlikely,anindividual willbeaffordedgreaterrightsandprotectionsfromhisstate.Thisisespeciallytruein 75SeeHOGG,supranote45at121.

76STEPHENROSS&HELENIRVING,COMPARATIVECONSTITUTIONALLAW,14.

20

constitutionallaw.Stateconstitutionshavetheabilitytoexpandtheminimumprotections enumeratedinthefederalconstitution.Thisispossibleformanyreasonsincludingthefact thatthestatesarenotrestrictedbyfederalismconcerns,thesupremacyclausedoesnot prohibitit,andeachstateisuniqueanditsconstitutionisanindependentandadequate sourcesofrights.77 VII.HistoricalandCulturalValues. TherearesomeinherentdifferencesbetweenCanadaandtheUnitedStates.One

suchdifferencecentersonthefoundingideologyofeachnation.TheUnitedStateswas establishedthroughrevolutionandconquest.Canadacouldhavejoinedthecoloniesin revoltingagainstEnglandbutreliedinsteadoncompromiseinformingthenation.78 Americanshaveasenseofentitlementtheyfeelthattheirinterestsanddesiresareworth fightingforatanyandallcosts.Canadians,ontheotherhand,aremorereluctanttoengage incontroversytosecuretheirrights. SeveralculturaldifferencesbetweenAmericansandCanadianswereenumeratedin

FIREANDICE: AmericanisamorecompetitivesocietythanCanada.Itismoreinnovative.Itisalso more violent and more racist. Americans worship money and success more than 77KENGORMLEY,THEPENNSYLVANIACONSTITUTION:ATREATISEONRIGHTSANDLIBERTIES,2425 (2004).
78SeeADAMS,supranote67,at124.

21

Canadiansdo.Americansaremorewillingtotakerisksinthehopethattheymight winthantoinsureagainstdisasterinthedearthattheymightlose.79 ThispassageisdemonstrativeofthecontrastingnaturesofAmericansandCanadians.The governmentsofeachnationmustrecognizetheattitudesoftheirpeopleandrespond accordingly.Therefore,oneexplanationforthedissimilarapproachestorawmilkmaybe assimpleastheAmericangovernmentknewthatAmericanrawmilksupporterswould standupandfightfortheirrighttorawmilk,whereastheCanadiangovernmentknewit waslesslikelythattheCanadianrawmilkdrinkerswouldcauseanysuchdisturbanceso theydecidedtoplayitsafewithafederalban. Althoughtherearecontrastinghistoricalandculturalfactors,thevaluesof

AmericansandCanadiansinthiscontextarequitesimilar.Citizensofbothnationsvalue therighttochoosewhattheyconsume.80Prohibitingrawmilkisinconsistentwithother policiesinbothnations.Canadaallowstheconsumptionofunpasteurizedcidereven thoughitdoesnotrecommendit.81TheUnitedStatesallowsitscitizenstoconsume undercookedmeat,suchasrarehamburgers,andrawfish,suchassushi.Therefore,the valueoftherighttochoosewhattoeatisnotwhatseparatestheUnitedStatesandCanada

79Id.at115.
80RightOnCanada.ca,CampaigntoPutHumanRightsBackonCanadasAgenda,availableat

http://www.rightoncanada.ca(lastvisitedDec.10,2009);RawMilk.org,Preservingthe people'srighttochoosethehealthyfoodstheywant,througheducationandactivism, availableathttp://www.rawmilk.org/default.php(lastvisitedDec.10,2009).

81HealthCanada,UnpasteurizedJuiceandCider,availableathttp://www.hc

sc.gc.ca/indexeng.php,enterunpasteurizedjuiceinthesearchfield(lastvisitedDec.10, 2009). 22

ontheissueofrawmilk.Itisactuallyavaluethatunitessupportersofrawmilkonboth sidesoftheborder. VIII.Conclusion. FederalismisnotthereasonthatrawmilkistreateddifferentlyinCanadafromthe

UnitedStates.Popularityisalsonottoblame:rawmilkisaspopularinCanadaasinthe UnitedStates.Althoughtheeffectivenessoflobbyingseemstopartiallyexplainwhythe UnitedStateshasnotcompletelybannedrawmilkasCanadahas,themostplausible reasonsforthedivergencearemostlikelythedifferencesingovernmentstructureandthe historicalandculturalvalues.Inotherwords,thereasonfortheincongruenceisnota concreteconstitutionalorpoliticalonebutduetothehistorical,moral,andsociological differencesbetweentheUnitedStatesandCanada.Theyaresisterstatesbutalsoforeign countries.Bothcountriesagreethatrawmilkisdangerousforhumanconsumptionand wouldpreferthatitbebannedentirely.However,eachhadtomakedecisionsthat reflectedthestructureoftheirgovernment,includingthedistributionofpowers,and culturalandsocietalnormsandvalues.

23