|
“Just who decided there ought to be a law?” the young man asked
at the hearing. “Who decided buying raw milk should be illegal?”
After ten and a half hours of testimony and 89 speakers, we had the answer.
In 1909, Eau Claire passed the first Wisconsin ordinance banning the sale of
raw milk. The law was the reaction to public outrage after many who consumed
unpasteurized milk were sickened.
The Senate Committee on Agriculture and Higher Education, which I chair,
joined the Assembly Committee on Rural Affairs in conducting a public
hearing in Eau Claire to consider a pair of bills aimed at repealing the
state law banning the sale of unpasteurized milk.
Over six hundred citizens attended the hearing and sounded a cautionary note
to legislators who often are quick to respond to constituents who say “there
ought to be a law.”
With the words “freedom” and “milk” written in black marker on 650 white
paper hats, those attending the hearing repeated a theme of too much
government involvement in their refrigerators.
“Sushi is legal and that’s raw fish,” said a woman from West Bend. “Steak
tartar is legal and that’s raw meat. Raw oysters and undercooked eggs are
legal. Why do I have to break the law to buy raw milk?” Other citizens
testified they know raw milk can harbor pathogens. They understand the
product is dangerous if not properly stored and served. “Alcohol and
cigarettes are dangerous but legal. Why can’t I buy raw milk, which is not
nearly deadly?”
The answer is public outrage over food bourn illnesses that caused
legislators to pass laws restricting the sale of raw milk years ago.
Ironically, health concerns led to these laws and health concerns are
leading many to reconsider the laws. Nearly everyone testifying in favor of
repealing restrictions on the sale of raw milk testified to the health
benefits.
People hailed raw milk as a cure of gall stones, asthma, eczema, diabetes
and a number of colon ailments. Those who testified told how raw milk helped
one gain weight, lose weight and live a long life. But the themes of
freedom, choice and being close to the source of one’s food supply were also
paramount in the minds of those who testified.
While some attending the hearing admonished committee members for their
insensitivity to the concerns of citizens, I found my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle remarkably sensitive to citizens’ concerns. Nearly every
legislator with whom I spoke following the hearing said there must be a way
to allow limited on-farm sales of fresh milk directly to consumers.
Legislators daily face the challenge of balancing the interests of those who
say ‘there ought to be a law’ with those who say ‘or not’. All the laws on
the books are the result of similar hearings in previous years when people
said ‘there ought to be a law.’ But the law is a blunt instrument and those
who apply it struggle to take into account specific circumstances. In areas
where there are a lot of specific circumstances there can be a lot of
unintended consequences.
And things change. For example, we heard testimony that micro-filtering
technology would render milk pathogen free without pasteurization. But the
law, by nature, is - well - law; it is hard to allow for flexibility.
This coming week, members of the Ag Committee must grapple with the
consequences of repealing the law making the sale of raw milk illegal. Once
again we will struggle to find balance between the concerns of those who say
‘there ought to be a law’ to protect the public’s health and those who want
the freedom to buy unpasteurized milk.
Citizens across the state will weigh in and we will attempt to find a
solution that respects the will of the people - as one man reminded us when
he quoted the writings in the Governor’s Conference Room - ‘the will of the
people is the law of the land’.
|
