Earlier this month, Wisconsin Judge Patrick J. Fiedler issued a response to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund regarding the Constitutionality of food rights. In his response, Judge Fiedler stated “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow.” He then went further stating, “Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice.”
So, what does this mean? You have NO right (according to Judge Fiedler) to raise animals, crops or even an orchard or backyard garden. You have NO right to choose what food you eat. The government has the right to mandate or prohibit the consumption of any food.
What would motivate Judge Fiedler to issue such a shocking ruling against food rights? Well, a quick Internet search reveals some clues. Within days of his ruling against food rights, Judge Fiedler announced he has decided to retire and will resign his position as judge September 30. He will go into private practice, as an attorney for the Axel Brynelson Law Firm.
I did some research on the Axel Brynelson Law Firm and found that in May 2010, the firm represented Monsanto in a lawsuit concerning a DNA patent. So, within days of ruling that Americans have no right to produce and consume the foods of their choice, Judge Fiedler is hired by a law firm that represents Monsanto. What a coincidence!
Well, that makes sense. They're already suing small farmers for cross pollination with round-up ready crops, and prohibiting them from saving their own seeds. Totally disgusting, and more than a little disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe it will stand. Any ruling can be over turned, right?
This is another good post, Shawn. Did I mention that you should have your own blog :-)?
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work of exposing the deeds of the wicked!
So does this mean, if I have a child, I must produce it to the state and then ask if I can adopt it back? Where has our union gone to? To the liberals who insist that we must be a communistic society.....
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. We can't produce food... My in-laws have a garden - they can grow anything they want. Do you mean they can't sell it?
ReplyDeleteErin,
ReplyDeleteWhat the judge is saying is that the government claims you have no fundamental right to produce your own food. In other words, the government is claiming it has the authority to decide what food you are allowed to grow or raise. With such rulings, any government agency could walk into your garden and say "you can't grow this, you can't grow that."
The government does not bother to claim an authority unless they plan to use it. The days of your parents growing anything they want will end and this ruling makes that clear. Even worse, the ruling could be interpreted that the government can tell you what you must eat or are prohibited from eating. (It is already happening with raw milk)
I don't want a judge, government official or anyone else claiming they have the right to tell me what food I'm allowed to grow, sell or consume.
Shawn