Home The Issue and Events Federal and Provincial Legislation Why There Is a Demand for Natural Milk
Where Sale of Natural Milk Is Allowed Methods of Production

Court File No. 939.12.0042



The Crown


The Defendant



1. The existing Ontario health laws and dairy industry have no lexicon to distinguish between raw milk that may be hazardous to consume raw, and raw milk that is safe to consume raw. The former applies to raw milk produced under current legislation. The latter applies to raw milk made under a higher standard, such as used by GLENCOLTON FARMS, and will be referred to hereinafter as Raw Drinking Milk.

2. This lack of a proper lexicon can be a source of confusion and misdirection for all parties connected with the issue of Raw Drinking Milk.

3. I became a Raw Drinking Milk consumer in the year 2000 for dietary reasons, i.e. I chose to consume only raw food.

4. Under the existing health laws it is illegal for dairy producers to supply consumers with raw milk.

5. Since the year 2000 I have been seeking to have the health laws amended to also permit the production and sale of Raw Drinking Milk. Appendix A is a summary of my initiatives.

6. My campaign has reached the point where court action would be the next logical step. As a consumer, I have legal arguments that bear directly on the legality of raw drinking milk.

7. Therefore I petition the court to intervene in the proceeding of The Crown v MICHAEL SCHMIDT so that all the relevant legal arguments that bear upon the issue of Raw Drinking Milk from all stakeholders can be consolidated and judged at one trial.


8. The enabling legislation for the Dairy Farmers of Ontario (hereinafter DFO) is the Milk Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.12. It grants the DFO a de facto carte blanche economic monopoly over all aspects of dairy production from cows in Ontario and its marketing.

9. In exchange, one of the obligations of the DFO is to maximize Ontario’s overall milk production, consistent with consumer demand. Section 2(a) states, “The purpose and intent of this Act is to stimulate, increase and improve the producing of milk within Ontario”

10. The GLENCOLTON FARMS dairy operation demonstrates the existence of consumer demand for a dairy product not presently supplied by the DFO, the availability of which would serve to increase overall dairy production in Ontario consistent with the DFO’s mandatory legal mandate.

11. Raw milk can be produced in such a manner that it is safe for human consumption. It must be produced with safety measures that compensate for the removal of pasteurization from the production process. Such procedures are used presently in all European countries except Scotland and many US states.

12. The existing health laws prohibit the DFO from distributing raw milk.

13. The DFO, however, incorrectly interprets this to mean that these laws thereby prohibit them from testing out any of the European or US procedures for Raw Drinking Milk that would be necessary to legally amend the law here. This may be due in part to industry and government confusion over the term “raw milk” as described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. See the comments of John Karn, Secretary of the DFO Board, in Appendices B-2 and B-4.

14. The regulatory oversight agency of the DFO is the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission (hereinafter OFPMC). They support the DFO in its incorrect interpretation of the law. See the comments of Dave Hope, Chair of OFPMC in Appendix B-6.

15. It is a matter of fact that the existing health laws do permit the DFO to test out any of the European or US procedures for Raw Drinking Milk that would be necessary to legally amend the law here. See Appendix C-2, an email from Dr. Jeff Farber, Director, Bureau of Microbial Hazards for Health Canada, inviting an application for just such a safety assessment. If there was any illegality connected with this for the DFO, it would have been noted.

16. The DFO is therefore in violation of its obligations under the Milk Act to maximize Ontario’s dairy production. The DFO has failed to act in good faith for the monopoly rights it obtained under the legislation. Had it done so, there would be no basis for the present legal proceedings as against the Defendant MICHAEL SCHMIDT and thereby renders them null and void.

17. Therefore consumers whose health has suffered by not having Raw Drinking Milk can seek damages from the DFO and OFPMC, as could any consumer deprived of the benefits of Raw Drinking Milk, which would be part of my future legal proceedings and why I petition to intervene in the present proceedings.


18. As stated above, there are procedures for Raw Drinking Milk which provides microbial safety without pasteurization. Such procedures are presently used in all European countries except Scotland and many US states.

19. As stated above, the DFO could, but refuses to take the initiative to introduce production practices for Raw Drinking Milk.

20. The Competition Act applies to organizations that have a dominant market position including legislated monopolies.

21. Section 78.(1)(g) of the Competition Act defines an anti-competitive act to be, "adoption of product specifications that are incompatible with products produced by any other person and are designed to prevent his entry into, or to eliminate him from a market."

22. Such is the case of the DFO with respect to GLENCOLTON FARMS and all other Raw Drinking Milk producers.

23. As a Raw Drinking Milk consumer, action under the Competition Act against the DFO is warranted, which would be part of my future legal proceedings and why I petition to intervene in the present proceedings.


24. The nonaction of the DFO as described above renders the existing health laws in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would be part of my future legal proceedings and why I petition to intervene in the present proceedings.

25. These laws are, the requirement for mandatory pasteurization under Section 18.(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 17, and Food and Drug Regulation B.08.002.2.(1) of the Food and Drugs Act (R.S., 1985, c. F-27).

26. Also included would be any associated laws that would impinge upon the distribution of all-natural farm-fresh Raw Drinking Milk from producers to consumers. These include, but are not necessarily limited to:
a) The mandatory requirement for a licensed milk plant if a dairy producer wants to sell to consumers directly, per Section 18.(1) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter 17, and per Section 15.(1) of the Milk Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.12;

b) The mandatory requirement to be a licensed distributor if a dairy producer wants to sell to consumers directly, per Section 15.(2) of the Milk Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.12; and

c) The mandatory requirement for artificial vitaminization of all whole milk sold in Canada, per Food and Drug Regulation B.08.003.(a) of the Food and Drugs Act (R.S., 1985, c. F-27). Said requirement comes about because of the deleterious effects to milk by commercial processing and is obviated with properly prepared all-natural farm-fresh Raw Drinking Milk.

27. Raw Drinking Milk is legally available for sale under a legitimate regulatory regime in all European countries except Scotland and many US states. Therefore our existing health laws violate section 1 of the Charter because Raw Drinking Milk is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

28. Many consumers perceive all-natural farm-fresh Raw Drinking Milk as a differentiated product from commercially prepared pasteurized, homogenized and artificially vitaminized milk. These differences include but are not limited to:

a) The fact that Raw Drinking Milk has many superior nutritional properties to commercial milk;

b) Some consumers can only consume Raw Drinking Milk since they have adverse physical reactions to commercial milk;

c) Some women experience breast enlargement with Raw Drinking Milk and not with commercial milk;

d) Dr. Johanna Budwig developed and promoted the Budwig anti-cancer diet. She discovered that whole raw milk mixed with flax forms a complete protein. For vegetarians, such as me, this is crucial information because we avoid the most common source of protein, i.e. animal protein. Our Charter rights are therefore violated by the non-availability of whole Raw Drinking Milk.

e) Some consumers want pasteurization but with all-natural farm-fresh raw milk (but not necessarily Raw Drinking Milk) as a base and to pasteurize it themselves, as opposed to commercially pasteurized, homogenized and artificially vitaminized milk. Double-walled home pasteurization pots designed for reliable, consistent and safe results are commonplace in Europe;

f) There are reports of milk-borne pathogens which have survived pasteurization. Consumers’ Charter rights are thereby violated by denying them the choice of a drinking milk that has been rendered safe without the use of pasteurization;

g) No food is 100% safe - there is always some degree of risk. Rather than zero tolerance, food safety deals with acceptable levels of risk. Provided Raw Drinking Milk is brought to within safe levels of risk, as has commercial milk, the choice between the two would be no different than buying a particular brand of automobile, which also carries a certain degree of socially accepted risk including fatalities. Consumers’ Charter rights are therefore violated without having the available choice of the differing relative risks and types of risk from consuming safe Raw Drinking Milk versus safe commercial milk;

h) Some consumers want milk from a specific farm rather than commercial milk which is pooled together from an unknown number of farms. One reason is there have been some recent deaths and a miscarriage from commercial milk that was properly pasteurized, possibly for the reasons stated above in subsections (f) and (g). (See Appendix D). The odds of infection are reduced with segregation as is the scope of an outbreak; and

i) Some consumers want to purchase their food directly from a producer and believe their right to contract with other citizens is violated when all dairy products must pass through a dairy.

For these reasons, the existing health laws violate section 7 of the Charter, the right to life, liberty and security of the person.

29. The existing health laws such as they apply to raw milk (and not Raw Drinking Milk, excepting subsection (e) below) violate the discrimination provisions under section 15 of the Charter, including but not limited to:

a) Dairy producers and their families may legally consume their raw milk, but not other consumers;

b) Any consumer, including children, may purchase any Raw Food of Animal Origin and consume it raw, except raw milk. On their website, Health Canada says, “Raw Foods of Animal Origin (RFAO’s) includes meat, poultry, eggs, raw milk cheese, fish and seafood.” (Appendix E). These other RFAO’s, except raw milk cheese, are hazardous in their raw state and are sold without mandatory warning labels, whereas raw milk may in fact be safe, depending upon how it was produced, but its sale is banned;

c) Any consumer, including children, may purchase any RFAO except raw milk, and, except for raw milk cheese, is expected to have the knowledge, capability and equipment to achieve proper microbial safety by applying the correct amount of heat for the correct duration. Raw milk is no more hazardous than the other RFAO’s and it could be heat treated by consumers just as easily as they now do with the other RFAO’s, yet its sale is banned.;

d) Health Canada reports that RFAO’s are the cause of the majority of Canada’s 30,000 foodborne illnesses each year. (Appendix E). This number could be greatly reduced if all the other RFAO’s were commercially “pasteurized” (heat treated) to achieve microbial safety prior to consumer sale, as is done with raw milk. The fact that they are not is discriminatory with respect to raw milk;

e) The consumer sale of one type of raw dairy product is permitted, i.e. raw milk cheese, but other types are not, specifically either raw milk, from which raw milk cheese is produced and sold to consumers, or Raw Drinking Milk;

f) Consumers may purchase and freely consume products that are known health hazards, e.g. alcohol and tobacco, but are prevented from buying raw milk which may in fact be safe, depending upon how it was produced. Alcohol is sold without mandatory warning labels notwithstanding its known toxic and in some cases lethal effects and adverse behavioral influences. Tobacco is a recognized carcinogen not only for smokers but also for those inhaling second hand smoke, but it is sold with a warning label. Both alcohol and tobacco have adverse effects on male and female fertility, embryos and on the longer term development of children exposed in the womb; and

g) Many poisonous consumer products are sold with a mandatory warning label. But raw milk, which many farm families regularly consume raw and otherwise is as easy to pasteurize as boiling an egg given the right pot, is prohibited for consumer sale even with such a label.

Date: June 4, 2008

James McLaren

TO: ?

APPENDIX A - This is "THE ISSUE AND EVENTS" PAGE prior to June 4, 2008.

APPENDIX B - This is the emails with the DFO and OFPMC - click here.

APPENDIX C - This is the emails with Dr. Jeff Farber, Health Canada - click here.

APPENDIX D - This is an online news article - click here.

APPENDIX E - This is Health Canada's RFAO webpage - click here.