Re: NEED HELP QUICK in support of Maine dairy industry

March 19, 2003

In a message dated 3/19/03 12:16:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

s.fisher22@... writes:

> Although, in recent months, Monsanto is trying to take away

> the right of Mainers to chose locally-produced rBGH-free milk. (Maine

> Attorney General Not Cowed by Monsantoâ€™s Claims about Maine Dairy Quality

> Seal http://www.mofga.org/mofgm03g.html).

I'm sorry. It's all our fault. All we do here in MA is take money away from

libraries and colleges and give it to Monsanto and Raytheon so they can kill

foreigners with cluster bombs and Mainers with hormones :-/

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 19, 2003

Hey Suze...

The reason why the price has dropped in the U.S. is not over production

in the U.S. it is imports of milk and MPC from other countries.

AND the big companies are bringing it in to run the small operator out

of business to control a smaller number of farmers to have a consistent

price.

Just a note the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)

has just projected that the base price for milk paid to the farmer will

not reach 13.00 per hundred weight anytime before the year 2013.

It is currently at 10.20 per hundred weight. break even for the biggest

and most cost effective farms is 11.85 per hundred weight.

More can be gotten at www.fapri.missouri.edu it is not a pretty picture

for anybody who commercially farms in the current mainstream market.

Suze Fisher wrote:

> I spent most of last night and this morning researching and putting

> together

> my testimony for the Maine Taxation Committee which is meeting in

> about an

> hour to hear testimony on LD 345, the bill to support maine dairy

> farmers.

> As a result, I am behind in my work right now and trying feverishly to

> catch

> up, so I can't yet respond individually to the helpful emails I

> received.

> But I just wanted to quickly thank the folks who sent me information,

> especially Tim and for such thoughtful replies.

>

> This morning I ran my testimony by the president of the Maine Organic

> Farmers and Gardeners Association, who is going to the hearing in

> person to

> testify on behalf of her organization. She said she thought my

> testimony was

> great, and was so happy to see someone *else* raising the same issues

> that

> MOFGA has been talking about - namely the importance of supporting

> small

> scale family farms at a time when they are being driven out of

> business by

> the mega factory farms and corporate agribusinesses. This was the

> focus of

> my testimony. Unsurprisingly, the reason that our dairy industry is

> now in a

> crisis, is not just because the New England Dairy Compact expired

> (guaranteeing a minimum price per hundred weight), but is largely due

> to

> milk OVERproduction by huge factory farm dairies in western states,

> which

> has caused milk prices to plummet. Yes, it's the same scenario that is

> being

> played out all over the country - these conglomerates are undercutting

>

> prices that small producers simply can't match. i don't doubt for a

> second

> that this is an intentional strategy to eliminate the competition.

> which of

> course, also eliminates consumer choice. and in maine, has resulted in

> an

> annual loss of approx. $22.77 million dollars.

>

> Unlike many other states, maine's dairy industry includes a lot of

> small

> scale family farms (i think we have 400 total). We also have at least

> one

> major milk supplier that only buys milk from farms that pledge not to

> use

> bovine growth hormones. And we have strong support for local Maine

> milk that

> is rBGH-free. Although, in recent months, Monsanto is trying to take

> away

> the right of Mainers to chose locally-produced rBGH-free milk. (Maine

> Attorney General Not Cowed by Monsanto’s Claims about Maine Dairy

> Quality

> Seal http://www.mofga.org/mofgm03g.html).

>

> Thanks again to those who helped! Will keep you posted :-)

>

> Oh, and I don't know if anyone has any interest in what's going on in

> the

> new england dairy industry, bu here are some bullets that I included

> to

> support my testimony from local newspaper articles:

>

> · “The state's dairy farms grossed $106 million in revenues in

> 2001, more

> than any other agricultural commodity in the state.” (Associated

> Press,

> January 28, 2003)

>

> · One year ago, when wholesale milk prices were stabilized by the

> Northeast

> Dairy Compact, $1.65 of every gallon went back to farmers. That figure

> is

> now down to $1.10. With 41.4 million gallons of milk produced each

> year in

> Maine, that amounts to a loss of $22.77 million. (Associated Press,

> January

> 28, 2003)

>

> · “The prices today are so low, according to one study, that

> Maine farmers

> are losing more than $8 for every hour they work. " These are Jimmy

>

> prices in a W. Bush world, " said Wellington, an

> economist with

> Agri-Mark, a dairy cooperative owned by New England farmers. " The

> stress on

> dairy farmers is the greatest I've seen in my 25-year career. " ”

> (Portland

> Press Herald, January 26, 2003)

>

> · “There is a ripple effect. As farmers cut back, grain

> companies, mechanics

> and equipment dealers also watch revenues drop. Farmers are worried

> that the

> state could lose one of its three grain companies, as well as one of

> its

> three major milk processors.” (Portland Press Herald, January 26,

> 2003)

>

> · “Wellington warned that the state is on the cusp of losing the

> infrastructure needed for the dairy industry to prosper. That has

> already

> happened in every other New England state except Vermont.” (Portland

> Press

> Herald, January 26, 2003)

>

> · “At risk in this crisis, said dairy farmer

> Wadsworth, is the

> future of Maine's rural economy and its landscape. Many abandoned

> dairy

> pastures will be turned into house lots, increasing the pace and costs

> of

> sprawl, he said.” (Portland Press Herald, January 26, 2003)

>

> · “Overproduction of milk by huge dairy farms in Western states

> caused the

> price to plummet, Wellington said. While New England farms are going

> bankrupt, farms in California, Idaho and New Mexico have been growing

> astronomically.” (Portland Press Herald, January 26, 2003)

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

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

> mailto:s.fisher22@...

>

March 19, 2003

,

I philosophically agree with you; however, it is more " free-market " for

everyone to be subsidized than just a couple biggies. Ideally all

agricultural subsidies should be completely abolished, but for balance, it is

wise to keep in mind that the large companies that got where they are through

a combination of subsidy and deception and political maneuvering have been at

a war the whole century to drive family farms out of business and it is a

very effective war. All hope is lost for a free market if these farms aren't

allowed to *survive*. I understand that if they aren't selling a product

people desire they government should not prop them up, but through milk

pasteurization requirements, other regulations, and subsidies, the government

has done enough to CREATE these monsters that it is wreckless to just sit

back and watch these monsters devour everything in sight. Keep the little

guys on their feet, try to correct the wrongs the government has already

done, and THEN let the " market " take care of things.

Chris

In a message dated 3/19/03 9:42:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

bberg@... writes:

> I despise socialism in all forms, and agricultural price-fixing is no

> exception. Moral objections aside, subsidization is likely to have bad

> consequences. If even the most efficient farmers can't break even, then

> that means that there are too many of them. If we stopped propping them up

> at taxpayer expense, then they'd either have to find a new line of work or

> find some way to distinguish their products so that others would pay more

> for them. On the other hand, if you impose price floors, they're likely to

> continue with the status quo. Grass-fed animal products, raw milk,

enriched

> eggs, and organic and biodynamic produce are all good ways for small

> farmers to get premium prices for their products without resorting to

price-

> fixing. If other people don't want these, why should they be forced to pay

> for them?

>

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

Quoting clearview acres <clearvu@...>:

> The reason why the price has dropped in the U.S. is not over production

> in the U.S. it is imports of milk and MPC from other countries.

> AND the big companies are bringing it in to run the small operator out

> of business to control a smaller number of farmers to have a consistent

> price.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but has it occurred to anyone that they might be

importing milk just because they don't want to pay as much for it? Why

would the companies that purchase milk want to reduce the number of

farmers, anyway? The more there are, the less they pay for milk.

> Just a note the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute (FAPRI)

> has just projected that the base price for milk paid to the farmer will

> not reach 13.00 per hundred weight anytime before the year 2013.

> It is currently at 10.20 per hundred weight. break even for the biggest

> and most cost effective farms is 11.85 per hundred weight.

> More can be gotten at www.fapri.missouri.edu it is not a pretty picture

> for anybody who commercially farms in the current mainstream market.

I despise socialism in all forms, and agricultural price-fixing is no

exception. Moral objections aside, subsidization is likely to have bad

consequences. If even the most efficient farmers can't break even, then

that means that there are too many of them. If we stopped propping them up

at taxpayer expense, then they'd either have to find a new line of work or

find some way to distinguish their products so that others would pay more

for them. On the other hand, if you impose price floors, they're likely to

continue with the status quo. Grass-fed animal products, raw milk, enriched

eggs, and organic and biodynamic produce are all good ways for small

farmers to get premium prices for their products without resorting to price-

fixing. If other people don't want these, why should they be forced to pay

for them?

--

Berg

bberg@...

March 20, 2003

Chris-

>Ideally all

>agricultural subsidies should be completely abolished,

Perhaps so, but I'm curious about the true nature of this ultra-free-market

religion. Isn't the ideal purpose of a system of government the

maximization of health, freedom, opportunity, and justice? If circumstance

and malfeasance result in an unhealthy and uneducated population, it seems

self-defeating, short-sighted and foolish to accept the " judgement " of the

" free " market -- a market which is neither free nor wise.

Any time capital concentrates sufficiently, it deforms the market however

it can. It's an inevitable function of concentration, like

gravity. Lobbying and corrupting the government is certainly a common

means, which prompts libertarian types and free market purists to advocate

drastic reduction of governmental power so that it can't be wielded by

corporations, but in the absence of a strong government, huge corporations

acquire quasi-governmental powers. Remember how company towns used to be

run? Do we really want a modernized version of that, a world in which most

or all of us work in company towns and are paid in company scrip which can

only be redeemed in our local company stores for whatever the corporation

figures is most profitable to sell? And make no mistake, that means highly

refined and processed carb foods like cold breakfast cereal, soy powder and

imitation beef, not expensive, labor-intensive, low-profit-margin foods

like pastured butter and meat, high fertility soil at the expensive of

yield, and so on.

The only way to avoid both concentrations of capital so large they have

their own gravity field and strong government is to exist in certain kinds

of frontier or minimally-industrialized societies, neither of which are

feasible in the modern world and neither of which will support the kind of

science required to optimize diet, nutrition, medicine, soil fertility,

farming, etc. And lest we all get to romanticizing our primitive forebears

too much, remember that for every happy, healthy, near-ideal tribe Price

found, there were many others which were not so happy and not so

healthy. Despotic and brutal social organizations have been common

throughout history, as have legions of other miseries.

I find the attitude of those who believe the market justifies anything if

it's only " free " enough, or even if it's not really so free at all,

mystifying and immoral. If people in the thousands and millions die of

malnutrition and associated diseases because they're too uneducated to

choose beef over non-fat food and Twinkies, that's OK? What about children

who are fed garbage by their parents? That's OK too? What are we actually

valuing here? What is the " market " ? If the entire species dies out, it's

fine because the market has spoken? Gimme a break.

I don't mean to pick on you, Chris; your post just happened to spark my

ire, but I probably should have replied to , or not replied at all.

-

March 20, 2003

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Quoting clearview acres <clearvu@c...>:

>

> > The reason why the price has dropped in the U.S. is not over

production

> > in the U.S. it is imports of milk and MPC from other countries.

> > AND the big companies are bringing it in to run the small

operator out

>

<><<<><<><<>>><<>>Some info here cut<>><><><>><><><>>><>>

> continue with the status quo. Grass-fed animal products, raw milk,

enriched

> eggs, and organic and biodynamic produce are all good ways for

small

> farmers to get premium prices for their products without resorting

to price-

> fixing. If other people don't want these, why should they be forced

to pay

> for them?

>

> --

> Berg

> bberg@c...

the only people paying for grass fed animal products, raw

milk, enriched eggs and organic and biodynamic produce are those who

buy them because they have a choice. If those same producers are

subsidized it's a minute amount cause subsidy is based on production

most likely. That's the way American grain farmers are subsidized.

Besides, the government needs someone to farm in the US(ie to grow

food)unless we're going on a liquid diet until the imports get here.

March 20, 2003

,

I mostly agree with you. The reason I responded to the way I did was

to point out that taking away agricultural subsidies to support small farms

is NOT a " free " market, " but is just enhancing the effects of past and

present mercantilism basically. I thought the agrument made more sense in

the given context than debating the values of markets or free markets.

But remember the role also of " strong " government in promoting the

circumstances you are decryign. Like Friedman once said, in a now

pretty widely popularized quote I'm probably butchering " Behind the Golden

Arches of Mcs is the iron fist of McDonell " er, something like

that. If we have " company " towns again, who's going to run them? Wal-Mart?

Selling cheap clothes made in far away countries with labor prices suprressed

by the " strong governments " in the region? How come Nike always got such

cheap sweatshop labor in Indonesia? Because the " strong government " of the

United States with its strong military forces virtually created the

Indonesian military/Suharto regime and helped bring it to power in 1965,

overthrowing the existing democracy and killing a half million to a million

people, which lived on for several decades suppressing its population. A

strong federal government with a strong military is what's doing these things

behind our backs. In fact, the best defence I've seen against Wal-Mart

(which, now that it's in to groceries, rumored (true?) to be getting into

movies, and is opening up in virtually every town, is on its way to running

the world and even suplanting our very government! envision!) is *not* a

strong *federal* government, but strong *local* municipal governments that

have had the guts to say, " no wal-mart, we won't let you in here. "

I don't remember enough of the history to assess the role of government in

the past development of company towns, but it certainly played a role. And,

if you get deep enough into it, remember that private property itself is a

social construction, and that it is govenment that enforces it. Behind every

piece of ownership is the barrel of a gun. No corporation amasses wealth

without the subtle threat of force lurking in the background.

But since private property does have social value, particularly in a

large-scale society like ours, in which the alternative is a physically and

pyschologically tyrannical terror-state, it makes sense to accept private

property, but make an equal demand. Giving private property to those who

would own is a social contract. Just like giving the government is a social

contract in which we demand certain rights and protections for collectively

giving up power, so the same, the land which, belongs to no one, or really

belongs to the earth and all its inhabitants, if it is given up to ownership,

it is a contract just the same and demands can be pinned to that contract by

the collective that relinquished the power to individual owners.

So, well, I think we basically agree.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

In a message dated 3/19/03 11:56:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

dkemnitz2000@... writes:

> the only people paying for grass fed animal products, raw

> milk, enriched eggs and organic and biodynamic produce are those who

> buy them because they have a choice. If those same producers are

> subsidized it's a minute amount cause subsidy is based on production

> most likely. That's the way American grain farmers are subsidized.

> Besides, the government needs someone to farm in the US(ie to grow

> food)unless we're going on a liquid diet until the imports get here.

But Dennis, don't forget the other side of it. All over Mexico small farmers

are losing their land. Their government doesn't give a **** about them

because small farming is " inefficient. " In fact, the reason these people are

losing everything they have and living in misery is largely the result of US

agricultural subsidies. NAFTA supposes an " equal playing field " but in fact

it is nothing but equal when US agribusiness is subsidized at a rate more

than 10 times what Mexico is subsidizing. Many of these farmers want to get

into organic produce and more diversified crops, like suggested but

they CAN'T because they dont' have the MONEY and won't unless the governments

SUBSIDIZES them. So the issue is not just straight out to subsidize or not

to subsidize. It is everyone must get equal subsidization to make up for the

absolute havoc the governmental subsidizes are wreaking. NAFTA also, of

course, voided the " right to land " clause in the Mexican constitution, so not

only are poor farmers getting poorer and giving up their land because they

can't survivie, but the farmers in Chiapas who subsisted on the land with no

real " ownership " except their constitutional right to the land are being

kicked off by the *military* because property values are skyrocketing with US

manufacturing companies moving in.

The same thing is happening in Columbia. Farmers can't compete with

US-subsidized AgriBusiness, so they grow coca, the only stable-cash crop they

can plant to *survive*. Then, after deciding the it will effectively destroy

any other farming, the US also decides that these farmers are the cause of

our own drug problem, and fly over with herbicides dumping out of jet planes.

Never mind the absolute environemental wreckage it causes. Never mind it is

destroying other crops besides coca. But these cocoa farmers are just moving

deeper into the rain forest. Coca production is INCREASING in Columbia since

these raids have been going on, and all that is becoming of it is more rain

forest destruction, more environmental pollution, probably more poor farmers

driven in to coca after US destroyed their other crops, and maybe it will

cause the price of cocaine to rise even further and aggravate drug-related

crime in our area. Remember the root cause: agricultural subsidies.

Subsidies are not always good.

I agree with you and that we need need to look at the situation

practically rather than dogmatically as if a political paradigm were a

religion, however, looking at it practically leads me to believe subsidies

are often more harm than good.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

The issue becomes much clearer when you discuss pastured meat instead of raw

milk. Raw milk is usually and can easily be sold by the gallon or half

gallon. However, meat pasturing farmers cannot survive selling steaks from

their farm, and most interested potential consumers do not have the time or

bulk investment to be able to buy half a beef. I've talked to many people

about pastured meat, at work, school, etc, and most people's reaction is

" where can I get some??? " but those people usually are not willing or more

often not able to invest in a chest freezer and travel to a farm to buy bulk

quantities of meat.

So, the issue is not simply about supply meeting consumer demand-- because

consumers are a)not fully able to enact their desires in the given

politico-economic agricultural situation and b)usually not fully educated or

severely miseducated by government and corporate propaganda that directly

benefits industrial producers.

For market theory to be valid, the assumptions it rests on must be true,

which are, in part, a) full transparency sufficient education of

consumers, c)the absence of *manipulation* of demand through advertising,

government deception, etc, and d)the freedom of producers to produce and

consumers to consume. ALL of these are to some degree obstructed in the

current American market.

Moreover, " externalities " must be taken into account. An externality is a

basic economic concept of a factor *external* to the supply and demand

equations. For example, a large industrial producer can produce milk at a

lower monetary cost, but the industrial waste pollutes the environement.

Since the runoff of waste effects land, air, and water, regardless of the

owner, including public land, that pollution does not factor into anyone's

" cost " equation, because it must either a)cause equal harm in a given region

or b)be cleaned up at public expense. No one pays for that cost by buying

the milk. So it is *external* to the cost-benefit equation of both the

producer and consumer.

If these are taken into account, it is shown that even a fully functioning

free market has inefficiencies in which it does NOT account for all costs and

benefits. It makes sense for people, then, to collectively take account for

these to make the most efficient system. To do this, people might want to

collectively encourage small farmers rather than large industrial farms,

because, when all costs and benefits are taken into account, they are

actually *more* efficient than large industrial producers. The market cannot

think-- it judges efficiency, but it does it poorly.

It is the same with math tests in school. I read a study where kids were

given a normal math test, and the kids were interviewed afterwards. I don't

remember the exact number, but something like 50% of kids who got a given

problem right had no idea or had the wrong idea of *why* the correct answer

was correct in a given problem, and 40% of kids who got that given problem

wrong understood the problem but made simple computational mistakes. So, the

test was very good at measuring the superficial-- whether the students put

the right answer-- but actually MISSCLASSIFIED 90 PERCENT of the kids as to

whether or not they UNDERSTOOD the mathematical concepts.

Markets are like math tests. They measure very well the efficiency of a

situation in terms of a slim category of factors that effect cost-benefit

analyses of producers and consumers, but the vast majority of factors

resultant from economic transactions-- such as environmental pollution, a

decentralized economic order, a greater proliferation of choice, the degree

that work is fullfilling and enjoyable for people, and on and on-- do not

factor into either of these cost-benefit equations, and thus markets

misclassify which kind of arrangment is more efficienct, probably 90% of the

time, like the math test.

In certain circumstances markets can function very well, but industrialism

has, with governmental help, changed the landscape of the market so that

there are many choices that appear " cheaper " to the consumer but over the

long-haul have enormous collective costs that far outweigh their benefits.

Chris

In a message dated 3/20/03 11:12:43 AM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> That is indeed the point isn't it. i suspect your " free market " farmer is

> filling niche, raw milk maybe. The question is could he survive without a

> subsidy if he had to compete with the factory farmers selling at a dollar

a

> gallon less?

>

> At 07:04 AM 3/20/03, you wrote:

> >Well, my free market raw milk supplier gets three dollars a gallon. A

> >dollar something more than the socialist subsidized farmer. Subsidies are

> >the problem not the free market.

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

You're absolutely right . I was very careless. I need to re-take

pre-algebra obviously ;-)

Chris

In a message dated 3/20/03 12:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Chris-

>

> I hate to point this out, but you've actually made a computation mistake

of

> your own here. <g>

>

> Let's say that 70% of the students taking a math test got a particular

> question right. Half of them, or 35% of all the test takers, didn't

> understand why their correct answer was correct and just lucked out. Of

> the 30% of the students who gave the wrong answer, 40%, or 12% of all test

> takers, understood the problem but made computational mistakes. So

> actually the test only inaccurately classified 47% of test takers. <g>

>

> Assuming that the 40% and 50% figures are constants, misclassification can

> be expressed as a single-variable formula in which the variable is the

> class's average percentage of correct answers -- IOW (0.5*X +

0.4*(100-X)),

> or X/10 + 40.

>

> Since the most possible students would be misclassified if all of them got

> the answer right (50%) than if they all got it wrong (40%),

> misclassification can and must range only between 40 and 50 percent.

>

> Now endeth the math lesson. ;->

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

In a message dated 3/20/03 1:53:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> Except if the small farmers have been run out of business, they have no

> product left to sell.

But no one selling raw milk is going to be run out of business by industrial

milk producers because they are selling to a captive audience. e.g., if I

find I can get industrial milk for half what I'm paying for organic raw milk

I'm not going to buy it. It's the people selling milk in the grocery store

who will get run out of business when the indistinguishable milk next to

theirs on the shelf is cheaper. And of course that is in part due to

subsidies of the big milk producers, but I think it's well gotten to the

point where the big producers can run the little guys out without any help

from the govenrment, like Suze said, by overproducing, or whatever else. But

the way they got there in the first place is by government regulations on

pasteurization, other hygenic regulations, subsidies, etc, etc.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of

them make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense

compassion, which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to

bear the sight of the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature.

Thus they pray ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the

truth, and for those who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

March 20, 2003

Well, my free market raw milk supplier gets three dollars a gallon. A dollar

something more than the socialist subsidized farmer. Subsidies are the problem

not the free market.

Larry

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

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 8:32 AM

Subject: Re: Re: NEED HELP QUICK in support of Maine dairy

industry