Skim Milk Revisited.

Stop us if you heard this one before: government agency requires dairy to label milk from a cow as an “imitation dairy product.”

If you have been paying attention and following this blog for a little bit, you may remember that in 2016 we covered the strange case of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services (DACS) outlawed a farm that skimed the fat off of their milk creating “skim milk” from labeling the milk as “skim milk” because the DACS was following federal guidelines that say that if a creamery removes the fat from milk, it must also add vitamin A and D back into the milk. It is somewhat important to note that the DACS was following Federal Department of Agriculture guidelines on what could be called “skim milk.” The DACS did not have to follow those guidelines, but chose to do so.

For those creameries that are advertising their products to be “100% natural,” the labeling rule presents a problem in that the creamery cannot add the vitamins and claim to be “100% natural” (and they don’t want to add the vitamins) or their natural milk product had to be labeled as an “imitation milk product” under the law.

The folks at the Institute for Justice took up the case and after being denied by a local district court, they won on appeal to the Eleventh Circuit.

However, the ruling only applied to the State of Florida which brings us to the case of the South Mountain Creamery, a farm in western Maryland.

South Mountain has been legally selling its products in Maryland (which doesn’t have the ridiculous labeling requirements) and wanted to expand their market into Pennsylvania. Upon writing Pennsylvania officials, South Mountain was told that Pennsylvania labeling law is the same as the Maryland law but there was a problem.

Because the milk would be crossing state lines the milk would have to comply with federal labeling standards – the ones that require the natural skim milk to be labeled as “imitation milk” or “imitation dairy product.”

The owner of South Mountain Creamery, Randy Sowers, is taking the FDA to court and like the farm in Florida, is being represented by the Institute for Justice.

Now Randy is taking steps to stop the FDA’s ban of honest labels. He is suing the FDA in federal court in the Middle District of Pennsylvania for violating his constitutional right to free speech.

This means, of course, that federal tax dollars will be used to defend a non-nonsensical rule that was made by an unelected official in some back room years ago.

Guns For Teachers.

Arming teachers and school staff is a contentious issue, but no matter what, we found this funny.

Sometimes you just need to laugh.

The Left’s War On Science.

An interesting perspective and one that deserves thought:

Many in the media say there’s a conservative war on science. Is this true? No, says John Tierney, Contributing Editor at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal. Tierney says “the real war on science is the one from the left.”

John Stossel points out that people on the right are more likely to believe in creationism.

Tierney answers, “creationism doesn’t… affect the way science is done. I can’t find examples where the right-wing stopped the progress of science… whereas you can look on the left and you see so many areas that are taboo to research.”

Gender differences, IQ trends, genetically modified foods. Tierney says the left stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa.

Palm Bay: The Lannon Resignation.

As we covered last Friday, Andrew Lannon, the Palm Bay City Attorney, has resigned.

There has been some speculation as to why Lannon resigned. Certainly he had made it clear that he was looking to obtain the position of the Brevard County Attorney after Scott Knox resigned, but that position was filled in house by Eden Bentley in a surprise move last Tuesday.

From what we know, the Lannon resignation had nothing to do with the County position being filled and Lannon not getting the job.

The City of Palm Bay recently received a demand letter and a lawsuit which name Lannon as a direct defendant. (A demand letter is sent prior to an actually lawsuit being filed.)

It is very rare for any attorney to be named in a lawsuit. That applies to both the public and private sectors. The common thing is to name the client as a defendant and not the client’s legal representation. Generally speaking, it is against legal laws and rules to file papers against people who are not or cannot be a party to the suit themselves. We bring this up because as the two suits named Lannon as well as the City of Palm Bay, the plaintiffs must have a good faith cause for naming Lannon in the actual suit. That is not a good thing.

With Lannon named as a defendant, the City sought outside counsel for legal advice on how to proceed.

Electioneering In Satellite Beach.

(click for a larger version in a new window)

The above notice was mailed out to the residents of Satellite Beach. Our first thought was “who is paying for this mailing?” but it could be the City or the County using franking privileges for commissioners. Smith is in a fight for his Commission seat with Trudi Infantini in the upcoming November elections. As far as we know, Smith has never done anything like this (a mailing and a meeting) so please excuse us if we see this as nothing but a political campaign stop organized with the help of the City of Satellite Beach.

If Smith wants to talk about Brevard County and his “leadership,” we are all for it.

First, we want to ask him about his disastrous and unConstitutional “Civility Ordinance” that he proposed and then pulled from the agenda after feedback from many groups and people.

Let’s talk about the $5 million for “sports turf” for the Viera Sports Complex. It is not that we are against the expenditure, but rather we are against the idea that the Commission was able to pay for the turf without going through any competitive bidding process by allowing USSSA to pay for the turf, and then the County reimbursing USSSA. The no bid contract may technically be legal, but in a county that is screaming for money to pay for the lagoon and roads, why not have the expenditure above board and within the spirit of the law? Does Smith really think that the County should be doling out $5 million without insuring the taxpayers are getting a good deal?

The Climate Change Smoking Gun That Wasn’t.

You may have heard of a trial going on in California where the cities of Oakland and San Francisco are suing oil companies for their alleged part in “climate change.”

The lawsuit is not about actual climate change because there is no way that either city or citizens could live without oil and petroleum products. Instead, the cities want oil companies to pay for “costs” associated with their products that are legally bought by a third party (the consumer at the gas pump.)

One of the key elements in the lawsuit is that the cities accuse the oil companies of hiding data and the supposed effect of the use of their products from consumers and investors. It is a key element for the cities to prove that the companies defrauded consumers and investors by the companies telling people of the so called risks to the climate when the products are used.

The cities represented to the judge that there was a “smoking gun,” – a memo that the companies had tried to suppress and hide from the people.

Such a charge would fit into the narrative of “profits over people” which is what the cities want to portray.

However, there is a problem and the judge in the case saw it:


Palm Bay: City Attorney Lannon Resigns.

Andrew Lannon, the Attorney for the City of Palm Bay, has resigned.

More on this as it develops as there is a back story that we are trying to confirm.

But for now, Lannon is leaving.

UPDATE: The FloridaToday has an article on the resignation:

Palm Bay City Attorney Andrew Lannon resigning his post

« Previous Entries