The recent court decision in Ontario, Canada that acquitted Michael Schmidt has profound implications both in Canada and the United States. The judge ruled that the government cannot interfere with private citizens and private contracts without a compelling state interest to do so. And of course in Michael’s case, there is no compelling state interest since a cow share is a private contract between two private citizens.

Food protection laws have their origins in the early 20th century when the government determined that to protect the public health and safety, it needed to control the various kinds of “persons” it created. In the case of these new laws, the “persons” include corporations and other artificial or fictitious entities that handled food. Because the government created these “persons,” they have both the duty and the right to do whatever is necessary to regulate, control or oversee them.

However, the government did not create “the people”. We are neither corporations nor any other artificial or fictitious entities. We are natural people and private citizens. Both the United States’ and most state Constitutions protect our rights. When we are involved with private, not public sales, the state has no compelling state interest. This distinction is critical to preservation of our basic rights as free citizens. For if there is no difference between private and public, as those in government would like us to believe, then the government can determine, as it sees fit, that anything is public. With this interpretation, nothing is really private and the Constitution become irrelevant as the state can thus set rules without any consideration for our individual rights or liberties. And considering the extent that corporate interests have infiltrated regulatory agencies and influence legislators, this is indeed a terrifying notion.

The Schimdt decision says that the government has no authority to regulate a cow share since it’s a private matter. No advertising is used to attract new “customers”. In fact, there are no customers as the raw milk is not actually sold, more importantly, the ownership of the milk never changes. The owner of the cow is the consumer of its milk–which is legal in Ontarion as in most jurisdictions. Some contend that cow shares present a risk to public health and public safety. This attitude misunderstands the fundamental principles of trust in a commercial context. Farmers running a cow share are extremely concerned about the health and safety of their members and have to develop standards that exceed those of government inspected and regulated programs. Remember that regulated food sickens and kills people every year and those responsible have millions to spend on lawyers and public relations campagins. And virtually no company has been put out of business for sickening or killing it’s customers.

Instead, cow share owners must trust their producer and in return the producer has to keep the food safe or chance losing their livelihood. And it’s not from a law suit, but from a fleeing of customers. But the producer also has to look their cow share owners in the eye every time they hand over food, so there is constant pressure on the producer. When you’re at the grocery store, you can’t look into the eye of the person that produced the food.

No greater incentive for safety, security and accountability exists than having to look every customer in the eye with every sale or to put your family name on every food item. If they fail to provide safe, quality food, at best, we’re out of business. And exactly how does regulation provide more safety, security or accountability? The recent major problems with tomatoes, peppers, ground beef, lead paint, etc., all regulated, controlled and/or inspected by the government, does little to raise one’s comfort level that our health and safety are in good hands with the government.

Anyone who believes that government is the answer needs to ask, what has the government actually done well? What problem has it solved? Poverty? Education? Health care? Energy? Illegal immigration? Pick anything. The issue is bigger than raw milk. It’s bigger than agriculture. The whole system is sick. The government has a lawful role for sure. But it’s a sad commentary when we say we trust politicians, bureaucrats and their associated special interests, more than our neighbors. The real food movement shows that we need to rebuild communities and relationships. Local farmers and their customers responsibly exercising their rights are the nucleus of that process.