"Don't Have A Cow, Man!": Recognizing Herd Share Agreements for Raw Milk.

Timothy J Mayer
{"title":"\"Don't Have A Cow, Man!\": Recognizing Herd Share Agreements for Raw Milk.","authors":"Timothy J Mayer","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dissatisfaction with the industrial model of food production has caused many consumers to seek out food produced on local, family-scale\nfarms that use U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic or other sustainable practices to grow their food and raise their\nlivestock. While almost all of the types of food that are available at the grocery store can also be found at the local farmers market, one\nfood that is difficult to find in many states is raw milk—that is, milk that has not undergone pasteurization (heat treatment). This\ndifficulty lies in the fact that most states prohibit the direct retail sale of raw milk to the final consumer because public health officials and\nstate legislators fear that raw milk may contain bacteria harmful to human health such as E. coli, Campylobacter, and Listeria. However,\nsome consumers reject these warnings and instead believe that raw milk possesses both nutritional and medicinal qualities. Indeed, an\never-increasing body of scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals supports the claim that raw milk consumption can mitigate\nor prevent some allergies and infections, especially in young children. In order for consumers to obtain raw milk in states where its sale is\nprohibited, some consumers have entered into arrangements with farmers known as “herd sharing,” through which the consumer\neffectively becomes an owner of the herd of cows or goats. For the price of the share and a monthly boarding fee, the shareholder can\nreceive a weekly distribution of the herd’s primary dividend, namely the raw milk. Several states expressly permit this practice while most\nare silent and still a few prohibit it outright. The three courts in the United States that have ruled on herd share agreements have split,\nwith two courts rejecting the agreements as a circumvention of the state’s prohibition on the sale of raw milk, and the other court\nassuming the agreement’s validity in light of the state’s failure to adequately define “sale.” I argue that courts should consistently\nuphold properly written herd share agreements where such agreements are not prohibited because such agreements are deeply\nrooted in the longstanding practice of shared ownership agreements for livestock found throughout the agriculture industry. Furthermore,\nraw milk has been found by some researchers to be a low-risk food that may actually have some nutritional and even medicinal qualities\nnot found in pasteurized milk. And to the extent that raw milk consumption could cause harm, the risk of a large-scale outbreak from\nmilk obtained through a herd share is slight considering how few participants are in any given herd share.</p>","PeriodicalId":73212,"journal":{"name":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health matrix (Cleveland, Ohio : 1991)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dissatisfaction with the industrial model of food production has caused many consumers to seek out food produced on local, family-scale farms that use U.S. Department of Agriculture certified organic or other sustainable practices to grow their food and raise their livestock. While almost all of the types of food that are available at the grocery store can also be found at the local farmers market, one food that is difficult to find in many states is raw milk—that is, milk that has not undergone pasteurization (heat treatment). This difficulty lies in the fact that most states prohibit the direct retail sale of raw milk to the final consumer because public health officials and state legislators fear that raw milk may contain bacteria harmful to human health such as E. coli, Campylobacter, and Listeria. However, some consumers reject these warnings and instead believe that raw milk possesses both nutritional and medicinal qualities. Indeed, an ever-increasing body of scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals supports the claim that raw milk consumption can mitigate or prevent some allergies and infections, especially in young children. In order for consumers to obtain raw milk in states where its sale is prohibited, some consumers have entered into arrangements with farmers known as “herd sharing,” through which the consumer effectively becomes an owner of the herd of cows or goats. For the price of the share and a monthly boarding fee, the shareholder can receive a weekly distribution of the herd’s primary dividend, namely the raw milk. Several states expressly permit this practice while most are silent and still a few prohibit it outright. The three courts in the United States that have ruled on herd share agreements have split, with two courts rejecting the agreements as a circumvention of the state’s prohibition on the sale of raw milk, and the other court assuming the agreement’s validity in light of the state’s failure to adequately define “sale.” I argue that courts should consistently uphold properly written herd share agreements where such agreements are not prohibited because such agreements are deeply rooted in the longstanding practice of shared ownership agreements for livestock found throughout the agriculture industry. Furthermore, raw milk has been found by some researchers to be a low-risk food that may actually have some nutritional and even medicinal qualities not found in pasteurized milk. And to the extent that raw milk consumption could cause harm, the risk of a large-scale outbreak from milk obtained through a herd share is slight considering how few participants are in any given herd share.

“别大惊小怪,老兄!”:承认原奶牧群分享协议。
由于对食品生产的工业化模式不满,许多消费者开始寻找当地家庭规模农场生产的食品,这些农场使用美国农业部认证的有机或其他可持续做法来种植食物和饲养牲畜。杂货店里几乎所有种类的食物都可以在当地的农贸市场买到,但有一种食物在许多州很难找到,那就是生牛奶——也就是没有经过巴氏杀菌(热处理)的牛奶。这一困难在于,大多数州禁止原料奶直接零售给最终消费者,因为公共卫生官员和州议员担心原料奶可能含有对人体健康有害的细菌,如大肠杆菌、弯曲杆菌和李斯特菌。然而,一些消费者拒绝接受这些警告,相反,他们认为生牛奶既具有营养价值,又具有药用价值。事实上,越来越多发表在同行评议期刊上的科学研究支持这样一种说法,即食用生牛奶可以减轻或预防某些过敏和感染,尤其是对幼儿。为了让消费者在禁止销售生奶的州获得生奶,一些消费者与农民达成了所谓的“牧群共享”协议,通过这种协议,消费者实际上成为了牛群或山羊的所有者。对于股票价格和每月的寄宿费,股东可以每周获得牛群的主要股息,即生奶。有几个州明确允许这种做法,但大多数州保持沉默,还有几个州完全禁止。美国的三家法院对牧群分成协议做出了裁决,其中两家法院认为该协议是对该州禁止销售生奶的规避,而另一家法院则认为该协议是有效的,因为该州没有充分定义“销售”。我认为,法院应该一贯地支持书面的牧群分享协议,因为这种协议深深植根于整个农业行业中长期存在的牲畜共有所有权协议。此外,一些研究人员发现,生奶是一种低风险食品,实际上可能具有巴氏奶中所没有的一些营养甚至药用品质。在某种程度上,生奶消费可能会造成伤害,考虑到任何给定的群体份额中参与者的数量很少,通过群体份额获得的牛奶大规模爆发的风险是微不足道的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信