Maggie's Farm

According to my reading of the judge's opinion, which is the source document that's linked to in the original article, the plaintiffs in both cases are caught in a bureaucratic Catch-22. The plaintiffs are involved in a closed co-op arrangement, which is subject to the milk producing laws of the state. Contrary to what the judge is said to have written later on, his opinion clearly accepts the validity of Wisconsin state law that allows owners of milk producing cows to consume unpasteurized milk from their own cows, as long as the milk is nether sold nor distributed to other consumers. However, to do so, they must have a milk producer's license. But the state, which is the defendant in the case, says that to be granted a milk producer's license, the plaintiff's dairy farm must be run FOR PROFIT, i.e., a business engaged in the sale of milk to the public.

So the plaintiffs are caught in a bureaucratic contradiction: they CAN legally consume raw milk if they produce it from their own cows and refrain from distributing the milk to the public. At the same time, to produce the milk, they must have a valid license, which the state will only grant them if their farm is a for-profit business (not a closed or private co-operative) that sells milk to the public....in which case, the milk must be pasteurized!

Your first extract confirms what I said but says nothing more: the judge pierces the corporate veil of the closed co-op and asserts the defendants are operating a dairy farm. Fine, no problem with that.

Top of page 4 of the original opinion: the co-op distributes raw milk ONLY to members of the co-op and DOES NOT sell it to the public. The former activity is permitted by law, see 2nd paragraph of judge's opinion, page 19: "the statute clearly allows owners of the entity holding the milk producer license to obtain ungraded raw milk for their personal use." No one claims that anyone OTHER than co-op members received any of the raw milk. Fine, no problema.

However, the farms are not run for profit and thus, according to the state, cannot qualify for a milk producer's license, see last paragraph, page 6, "investments must be for the main purpose of holding a milk producer license and using milking animals to produce milk FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION TO THE PUBLIC." But, of course, selling raw milk to the public is illegal, see top of page 8. Also, 2nd paragraph on page 9: "for an ownership interest to qualify as a bona fide ownership in the milk producer, the ownership interest must have been acquired with an expectation of financial profit."

Aye, that's the rub. The co-op is non-profit, hence the state refuses it a milk producer's license, hence the co-op cannot distribute raw milk to its members. That's a Catch 22.

Your 2nd extract is arguably good science, but by law would not apply if the milk is distributed only to members of the co-op. However, by this juncture in his opinion the judge has decided in favor of the state's regulatory position regarding the business status and licensing requirement of the closed co-op, which---as I wrote---puts the co-op in the position of having to sell milk to the public in order to get a license. This esoteric legal point then allows the judge to argue public consumer health issues that he couldn't otherwise apply to a closed co-op.

QED. That's a legal Catch-22.

BTW, from what I've read, there is a simple way for any enterprising company to get around the upcoming ban on 100W incandescent light bulbs, and that is for the company to produce a 105W or a 95W bulb, which would NOT be subject to the ban. Apparently the federal law is very specific in its application. So, there you go, GE and Phillips & Friends: until Congress under a Republican House passes a new bill (not likely), you are free to fight a guerilla war in the name of Free Enterprise by manufacturing a 101W incandescent light bulb. The 100W incandescent light bulb is dead. Long live the 101W.