Sedgwick, Maine declares food sovereignty!

Reported on http://www.foodrenegade.com/

Sedgwick, Maine has done what no other town in the United States has done. The town unanimously passed an ordinance giving its citizens the right to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing. This includes raw milk, locally slaughtered meats, and just about anything else you can imagine. It's also a decided bucking of state and federal laws.

This was, apparently largely in reaction to the crack down a week ago on Amish farms selling raw milk.

So this gives us something to shoot for -- town by town, region by region, declare food sovereignty.

like marijuana, just because your city/state decides it's OK for you to do something doesn't mean the federal government can't/won't arrest you for it.

gleam wrote:like marijuana, just because your city/state decides it's OK for you to do something doesn't mean the federal government can't/won't arrest you for it.

To my knowledge, meat, milk and cheese are not controlled substances. The reason the Feds are still able to go after the medical marijuana folks (Gonzales v. Raich) turns on the Federal Controlled Substances Act. To my knowledge, there is no similar law that binds the actions of states or municipalities with regard to simple food products...yet. For now, they would have to invoke the Commerce Clause, which requires "inter-state commerce" be involved before the Federal government has any grounds to step in. However, the town's decision is limited to local foods, making a Commerce Clause invocation farcical (not that they won't try it).

kl1191 wrote:

gleam wrote:like marijuana, just because your city/state decides it's OK for you to do something doesn't mean the federal government can't/won't arrest you for it.

To my knowledge, meat, milk and cheese are not controlled substances.

Doesn't matter. As far as I understand, you can't have state or local laws that "overrule" federal laws. If you do, the ghost of Andrew Jackson comes to get you.

jesteinf wrote:

kl1191 wrote:

gleam wrote:like marijuana, just because your city/state decides it's OK for you to do something doesn't mean the federal government can't/won't arrest you for it.

To my knowledge, meat, milk and cheese are not controlled substances.

Doesn't matter. As far as I understand, you can't have state or local laws that "overrule" federal laws. If you do, the ghost of Andrew Jackson comes to get you.

Which Federal law does this town's law supposedly overrule? Read the FDA FAQ on raw milk and you'll see that they say it's illegal for it to be sold via inter-state commerce. That's the Commerce Clause effect that I was referencing above. I know of no legitimate means for the Federal government to stop a person in this town selling raw milk to another person in this town. The Tenth Amendment reserves Rights not enumerated in the Constitution for the states or the people.

I guess it depends if a federal regulation is the same as a federal law (and if every single law/regulation only applies to the interstate sale of food...I don't imagine that it does otherwise you'd have plenty of in-state producers of raw milk products and other contraband goodies).

I don't know the answer to any of this as my legal knowledge is based on 3 college classes and numerous Law & Order episodes.

kl1191 wrote:Which Federal law does this town's law supposedly overrule? Read the FDA FAQ on raw milk and you'll see that they say it's illegal for it to be sold via inter-state commerce. That's the Commerce Clause effect that I was referencing above. I know of no legitimate means for the Federal government to stop a person in this town selling raw milk to another person in this town. The Tenth Amendment reserves Rights not enumerated in the Constitution for the states or the people.

Oh dear, you really want to get into Commerce Clause issues here?

If the feds can say that you MUST buy health insurance, they can do anything. We'll see what the USSC says, but basically modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence would crush the locality. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is actually fairly on-point, as it regulated clearly "local" activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Even if they can't over-rule the Feds, I think it's good to see that there is a little backlash. In Chicago, we didn't just lay down and let them run over us when foie gras was banned. So clearly, fighting back has some value, even if it's just symbolic at the outset.

chitrader wrote:

kl1191 wrote:Which Federal law does this town's law supposedly overrule? Read the FDA FAQ on raw milk and you'll see that they say it's illegal for it to be sold via inter-state commerce. That's the Commerce Clause effect that I was referencing above. I know of no legitimate means for the Federal government to stop a person in this town selling raw milk to another person in this town. The Tenth Amendment reserves Rights not enumerated in the Constitution for the states or the people.

Oh dear, you really want to get into Commerce Clause issues here?

If the feds can say that you MUST buy health insurance, they can do anything. We'll see what the USSC says, but basically modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence would crush the locality. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is actually fairly on-point, as it regulated clearly "local" activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I think there's a compelling way to distinguish Wickard, in that the governments interest in banning raw milk is in no way related to economics, but rather is about health. Thus, while I would argue strenuously against the idea that allowing two Sedgwickians to sell raw milk to each other "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," even if you took it as a given, the government's interest in trying to regulate what type of milk the habitant of Sedgwick might buy has absolutely nothing to do with that effect, whereas in Wickard it was the entire purpose of the law at hand to try and manipulate the price of a commodity.

ETA: Lopez also really quite took the teeth out of Wickard.

kl1191 wrote:

chitrader wrote:

kl1191 wrote:Which Federal law does this town's law supposedly overrule? Read the FDA FAQ on raw milk and you'll see that they say it's illegal for it to be sold via inter-state commerce. That's the Commerce Clause effect that I was referencing above. I know of no legitimate means for the Federal government to stop a person in this town selling raw milk to another person in this town. The Tenth Amendment reserves Rights not enumerated in the Constitution for the states or the people.

Oh dear, you really want to get into Commerce Clause issues here?

If the feds can say that you MUST buy health insurance, they can do anything. We'll see what the USSC says, but basically modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence would crush the locality. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is actually fairly on-point, as it regulated clearly "local" activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I think there's a compelling way to distinguish Wickard, in that the governments interest in banning raw milk is in no way related to economics, but rather is about health. Thus, while I would argue strenuously against the idea that allowing two Sedgwickians to sell raw milk to each other "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," even if you took it as a given, the government's interest in trying to regulate what type of milk the habitant of Sedgwick might buy has absolutely nothing to do with that effect, whereas in Wickard it was the entire purpose of the law at hand to try and manipulate the price of a commodity.

It's a nice argument, but I think it would lose 9-0. There's no "economics/health" distinction in commerce clause cases. There is "interstate/intrastate" and possibly "activity/passivity", but the Feds have long used the CC to regulate health, safety, and welfare.

I wish you were right, but I don't think that is the case. The next big CC case is challenging Obamacare, we'll see how the Court handles it.

EDIT: And Lopez really doesn't apply here, since this is regulating actual economic activity (buying and selling of raw milk) as opposed to the ridiculous arguments for a national "gun-free" school zone.

chitrader wrote:

kl1191 wrote:

chitrader wrote:Oh dear, you really want to get into Commerce Clause issues here?

If the feds can say that you MUST buy health insurance, they can do anything. We'll see what the USSC says, but basically modern Commerce Clause jurisprudence would crush the locality. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is actually fairly on-point, as it regulated clearly "local" activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

I think there's a compelling way to distinguish Wickard, in that the governments interest in banning raw milk is in no way related to economics, but rather is about health. Thus, while I would argue strenuously against the idea that allowing two Sedgwickians to sell raw milk to each other "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," even if you took it as a given, the government's interest in trying to regulate what type of milk the habitant of Sedgwick might buy has absolutely nothing to do with that effect, whereas in Wickard it was the entire purpose of the law at hand to try and manipulate the price of a commodity.

It's a nice argument, but I think it would lose 9-0. There's no "economics/health" distinction in commerce clause cases. There is "interstate/intrastate" and possibly "activity/passivity", but the Feds have long used the CC to regulate health, safety, and welfare.

I wish you were right, but I don't think that is the case. The next big CC case is challenging Obamacare, we'll see how the Court handles it.

EDIT: And Lopez really doesn't apply here, since this is regulating actual economic activity (buying and selling of raw milk) as opposed to the ridiculous arguments for a national "gun-free" school zone.

While milk and wheat are both agricultural products, it can be argued that from an interstate economic standpoint, raw milk is almost more akin to the handguns of Lopez than the wheat of Wickard. Raw milk is highly unlikely to enter the interstate market because of its perishability.

kl1191 wrote:

While milk and wheat are both agricultural products, it can be argued that from an interstate economic standpoint, raw milk is almost more akin to the handguns of Lopez than the wheat of Wickard. Raw milk is highly unlikely to enter the interstate market because of its perishability.

Except that in Wickard, his wheat was stipulated by both parties to have never entered interstate commerce either, since he grew it for his own consumption. The Court still said that because he was using wheat that otherwise would have been in interstate commerce, the CC could reach the activity.

The fact is, right now, the Feds can do whatever they want.

chitrader wrote:

kl1191 wrote:

While milk and wheat are both agricultural products, it can be argued that from an interstate economic standpoint, raw milk is almost more akin to the handguns of Lopez than the wheat of Wickard. Raw milk is highly unlikely to enter the interstate market because of its perishability.

Except that in Wickard, his wheat was stipulated by both parties to have never entered interstate commerce either, since he grew it for his own consumption. The Court still said that because he was using wheat that otherwise would have been in interstate commerce, the CC could reach the activity.

The fact is, right now, the Feds can do whatever they want.

From my understanding of Wickard, it doesn't matter whether it did or didn't enter interstate commerce, it's whether it could have.

There's a reason the FDA FAQ only speaks to interstate sales, would there be a non-Commerce Clause justification for their couching of the law?

ETA: And, here's what I get for not fully reading the article I was linking...

Straight from the FDA:

[S]ome states do permit the intrastate sale of raw milk intended for human consumption.

I guess that settles that.

Looks like the idea is spreading. Three other towns are now considering passing similar laws regarding "food sovereignty."

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/03/maine-town-declares-food-sovereignty/

Despite that sentence fragment from the FDA saying the coast is clear, I wonder if the Feds will feel more reason to step in now that the idea is spreading to other towns. They might have let one "kooky" hamlet get away with it, but won't take so kindly to a movement.

I have enjoyed this discussion, and even as a non-lawyer have been able to glean the main points, thanks to the posters expressing themselves so clearly, and to all the Perry Mason episodes I've watched.