The Milk of Liberal Blindness

Timothy Birdnow

There has been an ongoing fight over what Americans can and should eat and how it can be produced and this has huge implications for society and for our individual liberty. Do we, as a people, decide what we are collectively allowed to eat, or is that an individual choice? It's a major issue because the food is an absolute necessity and controlling the production of food, and the distribution of food, gives you control of the populace. Limit people in what they eat and you control them.

I've mentioned before the concept of the hydraulic empire. A hydraulic empire was a river valley civilization where the flow of water was under the control of the emperor or king or pharoah. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China are three examples. They are always despotic, usually totalitarian. Anyone who doesn't obey gets the water shut off. Even if there is enough water to drink there won't be enough water for crops - the end result is an artificial famine. Nobody rebelled against a hydraulic empire.

The modern Left is attempting to create a hydraulic empire in the West, using health and environmental regulations to accomplish it. By restricting energy, for instance, they plan to squeeze people into the mold they have chosen. And by regulating food "for our safety" they will do likewise.

Which brings us to the matter of food choice and raw milk. A recent court case sided with an Amish farmer over his right to sell raw milk (milk that has not been pasteurized) across state lines.

Now, I wouldn't buy raw milk at all, and especially something shipped across state lines as it probably hasn't been kept at the proper temperature. But do Americans have a right to choose what they will eat or not?

No, according to liberals. The Heritage Foundation chronicles some of their efforts to forcibly impose a diet of their choice on Americans. There have been a number of court cases where judges sided with the FDA and other agencies against Americans' right to eat what they wish. SCOTUS weighed in on it, restricting some of their power to tamper with the American diet, but only to a point.

In a discussion about the constitutionality of Obamacare the late great Antonin Scalia had this to say:

Of course this argument did not prevail at SCOTUS but it illustrates what happens when government intervenes in the private market.

What is ignored here is the most fundamental of things - the Constitution of the United States. And of that the Bill of Rights, of which the 9th Amendment states:


And just to make doubly sure everyone got the point there was the Tenth Amendment which states:


Nowhere is the right to regulate what people eat or drink granted anywhere in the Constitution. It is assumed via the elastic clause (also known as the "necessary and proper clause") which says Congress may make laws "necessary and proper" to good governance. BUT the Ninth and Tenth are AMENDMENTS which means they supersede the elastic clause, as surely as the 16th Amendment supersedes the constitutional limits on taxation in the original document, or the 17th supersedes the original election scheme making Senators appointed rather than elected.

And every layer of regulation adds to the cost of doing business. There is a reason why American farmers are becoming an endangered species and corporations are now running the production of food. Once the farmer is gone and it's all corporate farming they own us.

So this is a welcome development. I favor a regulation where farms have to provide a warning, much like tobacco producers do. But we have a right to eat what we want. Last I checked this is still America.

Here is my essay from around 2004 at American Thinker over food freedom and the Left's weaponization of it. (It's dated 2007 because that's when AT updated the site.)

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 735 words, total size 5 kb.