The Miller’s Organic Farm Case: Part 1
Why write about a disturbing misfortune when to all appearances nothing can be done?
In the Amish village of Bird-in-Hand in a remote area of Pennsylvania, Miller’s Organic Farm has been in business for a century. Today, it supplies organic foods—grass-fed beef, raw milk and eggs, dairy from grass-fed water buffalo, and all types of produce—to a private food club of 4,000 members who pay top dollar for high-quality whole food.
Members want food from a farmer who doesn’t process his meat and dairy products at U.S. Department of Agriculture facilities. Aaron Miller, the owner, chooses to defend his preparation of food as the way God intended it. He himself has run the farm for a quarter of a century with no electricity, no fertilizer, and no gasoline. Observers are impressed with crop yields he achieves by the oldest and 100 percent organic methods.
The farm’s website says: “…we are proud to be entirely chemical, cruelty, and GMO-free. The animals are born and raised without antibiotics or hormones, and they spend their entire lives naturally and stress-free out on pasture. All the farm’s food is traceable, pure, and grown on nutrient-dense soil, under traditional time-honored methods.”
Sounds to me like the consolidated dream about a dozen environmentalist organizations: opposing animal cruelty, GMO, and use of chemical fertilizers—not to mention eliminating fossil fuels (no gas, no electricity).
Last summer, armed federal agents sent by the USDA demanded that Miller cease operations and prepared to hit him with more than $300,000 in fines. That would shut Amos Miller down.
They demanded that he stop selling meat until he comes under federal agencies that regulate it. Miller responds that such regulation “hurts the nutrition of the food…you wash it in these things, you’re given these vaccines, and the cows get all types of medicine, I don’t do any of that…your regulatory process will actually hurt the quality of my food and that’s what I’m being paid top dollar for…”
Federal agents camped at the farm to take inventory of his meat, dairy, and other food to make sure he is not selling anything and not increasing his production.
Miller took the case to the U.S. District Court of Eastern Pennsylvania, which ruled in favor of the USDA. The USDA dictated the following text required to be posted on the farm’s website:
“To the Members of Miller’s Organic Farm:
Please be advised…Miller’s Organic Farm violated the Court’s Injunction Order and Consent Decree. Accordingly, we will not provide fresh or newly slaughtered amenable meat, meat food products, poultry, and poultry products for sale or purchase unless and until Miller’s Organic Farm liquidates its existing…frozen meat and poultry inventory and complies with other requirements of this Order and other orders of the Court…
“…We are working diligently with the government to find some long-term solutions…”
But what “long-term” (or even short-term) solution? Miller’s farm is in violation of what might be called “bedrock” USDA regulations. The court order listing violations is an outline of the USDA’s Food and Inspection Service regimen. Farmer Miller’s own judgment of how to produce the highest quality food is a flat-out rejection of regulation. A decision of the court suggests the government’s position on Miller’s methods.
On July 21, 2021, Federal Judge Edward G. Smith signed a 39-page order imposing sanctions on Miller and the farm, including a $250,000 fine and other penalties “to effect defendants’ future compliance, by making them aware of the seriousness of their violations and the consequences of future violations…”
The farm was ordered to pay the fine within 30 days or face further penalties “including imprisonment of Amos Miller.”
The farm is ordered not to slaughter any animals in violation of the order or face a $25,000 a day penalty. Miller is ordered to cease and desist all meat and poultry retail operations, except to get rid of inventory.
In summer, 2022, Amos Miller, continuing his six-year legal battle with the USDA (represented by the U.S, Justice Department), filed papers with the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania. Miller also has taken some of the decision-making to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, including an appeal to change attorneys (which has been denied).
Walter Donway is an author and writer with more than a dozen books available on Amazon and an editor of the e-zine Savvy Street. He was program officer or director at two leading New York City foundations in the healthcare field: The Commonwealth Fund and the Dana Foundation. He has published almost two dozen articles in the Blockchain Healthcare Review.
READER COMMENTS
Monte
Nov 6 2022 at 7:41pm
There are broader ramifications to this case than a simple cease & desist order against Miller ‘s Organic Farm. This could set a legal precedent and result in the shuttering of thousands of farmers who operate under what are called properly formed Private Membership Associations (PMAs):
Phil H
Nov 6 2022 at 10:17pm
“Why write about a disturbing misfortune…”
Write about it because it’s interesting and disturbing? But you can write about it without feeling compelled to come to a clickbaity “the government is BAD” conclusion; or “Amish farmer is BAD.”
From your description it does sound like a misfortune. One of those cases where the sensible desire to farm in a particular way conflicts with sensible regulations. It’s OK that this conflict exists. (Not OK for Miller of course.)
Monte
Nov 7 2022 at 12:19am
How are imposing USDA regulations on an Amish farm operating under a PMA “sensible” and why should this conflict be allowed to exist or go unresolved? Personally, I’d be interested in any clickbait you’d care to provide to state your case.
Phil H
Nov 7 2022 at 1:36am
A Google told me that Miller was selling unpasteurised milk, so here’s a link:
https://www.fda.gov/food/buy-store-serve-safe-food/dangers-raw-milk-unpasteurized-milk-can-pose-serious-health-risk
Also that his chicken and beef is uninspected. Here’s a link on why chicken abbatoirs need inspection:
https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/industry-issues/food-safety/
You don’t actually need the link – the answer’s salmonella.
I don’t really do clickbait, but these provide the basic answers to the question “why is farming regulated?” The next question is why regulation should apply to everyone, and the answer to that is fairness, and to prevent loopholes existing and growing.
Monte
Nov 7 2022 at 11:33am
Compared to pasteurized milk, raw milk produced for consumption is, on balance, much healthier for you and has numerous health advantages over pasteurized milk:
Source: Letter to Medical Professionals about Raw Milk
Salmonella is incidental to ALL foods, USDA inspected or not. More to the point, this is a case of (bad) government stepping on a perfectly legal private transaction between (not bad) Miller and his customers. It’s a continuation of a long-running federal campaign to obliterate the notion of private food rights. The USDA and FDA refuse to acknowledge the right of Americans to purchase foods of their choosing directly from farmers.
The USDA (at the behest of multi-national food corporations) has worked for years to destroy the independent small farm community of this country under the guise of “food safety”, and it appears they’re poised to do just that to Miller and thousands of others if the court successfully pierces the veil of the PMA.
Phil H
Nov 7 2022 at 11:54am
I mean… yes, I understand that this is Miller’s argument. But obviously the regulator does not agree. Restating Miller’s argument doesn’t respond to my point.
My point was that *whatever* the regulatory regime, including no regulation at all, some difficult edge cases will exist. I don’t know if the legal history is the same in the USA, but in the UK, a major new branch of law had to be created to deal with the realities of industrial food production in the 19th century (tort law, snail in a bottle of ginger beer). It’s never going to be simple.
Incidentally, I don’t think the idea of “private food rights” is going to be helpful. Making up extra “rights” beyond those articulated by the law is… well, I don’t think it’s anything. Rights are a legal concept, and if they’re not in the law, they just don’t exist. (If you believe in “natural rights,” well… OK, but “private food rights” definitely isn’t a natural right.)
robc
Nov 7 2022 at 5:56pm
Private Food Rights absolutely is a natural law right. It falls under owning what you produce (or indirectly, trading your production for someone else’s production).
Monte
Nov 7 2022 at 1:03pm
So…you support the regulator in this case due to Miller’s non-adherence to the regulatory regime, or established law? To me, it reduces to a matter of law vs tradition, and, consequently, to what’s right vs what’s wrong. I believe we can argue that there are many laws that make certain activities legal, but not right.
All laws are initially passed with good intentions, but good intentions sometimes create bad legislation for certain segments of society. I would argue that’s the case here. Multi-national corporations, with the help of the USDA and the court, are attempting to destroy the valuable tradition of family farming in America. If consumers of Miller’s products understand and are willing to incur the risks of consuming non-USDA inspected food, what right does the government have to intervene on their behalf?
I disagree. If the law prohibits what we consider to be a dangerous activity (like consuming non-USDA inspected food), it would be widely seen as a violation of individual rights, what a natural right advocate would define as “an intolerable infringement of liberty.” I subscribe to Mill’s view that the only justification for coercion is to prevent harm to others, not harm to self, and that “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”
Phil H
Nov 10 2022 at 3:00am
“…law vs tradition, and, consequently, to what’s right vs what’s wrong”
Those categories seem to me to be completely unrelated. I put zero moral value on tradition.
“If consumers of Miller’s products understand and are willing to incur the risks of consuming non-USDA inspected food, what right does the government have to intervene on their behalf?”
This question has been asked and answered a million times. If you understand and are willing to incur the risks of driving on the wrong side of the road, you still don’t get to. There are certain issues that aren’t questions of wrong or right, but they need organising. There’s no wrong or right about driving on the right or left. But if you drive on the wrong side of the road, at night, when no one else is around, you’ll still get arrested for dangerous driving. Similarly, food needs to be regulated. Could be regulated this way, could be that way (just look at the differences in food regulations between the USA and Europe – obviously there are many different paths here). It so happens that the USA has chosen one particular way, and the process of enforcing that way is bumpy and includes some pretty unpleasant-seeming cases. That isn’t unusual.
“the only justification for coercion is to prevent harm to others, not harm to self”
This case matches that. It’s the farmer being coerced, and the potential harm is to his customers. If he creates a salmonella outbreak, he’s not the one who will be harmed.
Monte
Nov 10 2022 at 9:31pm
How sad. Traditions have been an important component of human societies since their beginning. They’re a source of enjoyment and meaning and give us a sense of community to broader society. They give life meaning and purpose. Traditions also represent a critical piece of our culture in that they help form the structure and foundation of our families and our society. They remind us that we are part of a legacy that will define our past, present, and future. But more importantly and pertinent to this discussion, they are a central feature of constitutional law.
Legal reasoning and legal discourse take place within historical traditions that develop over time. Law is characterized by the authoritative presence of those historical traditions. – Filipe Jimenez, Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities
Once we ignore the meaning of our traditions, weʼre in danger of damaging the underpinning of our identity. – Frank Sonnenberg
False equivalence. You can’t compare traffic law to contract law. Traffic laws are universal and govern anyone who operates a vehicle on public roads. I can drive on either side of a private road at night without fear of arrest. Likewise, contracts involve private parties with legal guidelines for indemnification, which is the case with Miller and his customers.
Again, Miller’s customers sign a legal contract indemnifying him from any liability by voluntarily accepting the potential risks involved.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Nov 7 2022 at 1:46pm
Sad example of regulation of input instead of regulation of output. Although in this case, the scale of the transaction is small enough that even regulation of the output is of little value to the consumer.
Marie
Nov 7 2022 at 3:53pm
Hey just wanted to call out a correction. You name “Aaron Miller” in the 3rd paragraph. But, it’s “Amos Miller” that owns Miller’s Organic Farm. Aaron Miller owns Miller’s Bio Farm. They are two completely separate operations, but people do confuse them a lot.
Comments are closed.