Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Lemonade For Freedom Day!

When one lives in a "Nanny State", one must continually ask for permission to do things.

I read an article pointing out how "unfree" we really are.
It got me annoyed and it got me thinking.

Honestly, when we have the government shutting down lemonade stands then we really have a problem. This kind of government intrusive lunacy is happening all over the country.

Can you believe that three little girls in Midway, Georgia decided to set up a lemonade stand to raise a little money so that they could go to a waterpark, and when they did, the police came by and shut them down! Oh yes, because "the law" requires that anyone selling anything to eat or drink in their town needs to obtain a "business license" which would have cost those little girls $50 a day! No kid can make that kind of money selling lemonade or cookies - so effectively that is an activity that is now banned for kids.

Citing "health and safety" concerns, the police chief in Midway was serious when he said:
'We were not aware of how the lemonade was made, who made the lemonade, or what the lemonade was made with"
Egads... this is really an example of the nanny state on steroids.

Kids can't sell lemonade anymore! just like the Amish or natural food stores can't sell raw milk!

In America there is no longer the freedom to grow or bake food, or make something to drink, and sell it to our neighbors! and this kind of government control is taking hold in many communities.

The sad reality is that if you want to do almost anything you must get the permission of the government to do it first. And usually you have to pay a fee for that permission.

You can't open a business, drive a car, get married, have a pet or livestock, fix your porch, go fishing, or do a ton of other things without government permission. The rules and regulations set upon us by government entities is relentless.

I say - as a protest and a lesson to our children in civil disobedience - we should choose a Saturday - Like August 20 - and call it Lemonade for Freedom Day - and every child in America should have a lemonade stand!

Every liberty loving adult should stop at these lemonade stands and support Freedom!

Let's DO IT!
It's up to all of us to take this thing viral!

Update: This website was created by Robert F. and there's a FaceBook Page too!


Anonymous said...

One important difference. The lemonade stands are being targeted because of a tax. The tax to get a permit should be reduced or eliminated for all businesses not just kids selling lemonade.
The issue around raw milk has a long history. There is a reason pasteurization was invented. If the producers of raw milk can come up with a procedure to make this body fluid safe then I favor selling it. Something like irradiation maybe. Otherwise they should not be allowed to sell it to the public.

Robert said...

Hi, I just came across your post. I actually just created the exact event that you brought up. I created a website to promote the event You can go to the website here:

and also, I have a Facebook event for people to sign up:

If you can help get the word out, that would be great!

Robert Fernandes

Judy Aron said...

Anonymous - I know plenty of people who drink Raw Milk - and they have not gotten sick.
Who are you to say what should and should not be sold to the public?

There's plenty of "unsafe food" being sold - how about Twinkies and Big Macs? You can get cancer and die from the crap that in those things.

Sorry - but I think raw milk is not a problem and should be sold to whoever wants to buy it - if it makes you happy stick a warning label on the bottle.

Robert said...


We live in NJ and we travel (not too far) into PA to buy our Raw Milk every week because it is not legal for sale in NJ. Raw Milk is much healthier than pasteurized milk. Our kids grow up on it. No health problems at all. But we don't want to force you to drink Raw Milk.

Here's an idea. If you don't want to drink it, don't buy it. But why anyone wants to use the force of government to push their beliefs on individuals who want to voluntarily purchase goods or services is beyond me.

Pinget said...

You should have to attend a ServSafe class so you could be better educated on all the pathogens that can be conveyed to unsuspecting consumers through improper food handling. This is a public health issue. The state assures you that food you buy is safe. Rogue operators are a threat to the public. A man near me decided to barbeque in his front yard and sell boston butts to the public. That is rightly illegal. Also there's a woman who parks at an intersection near me and sells home canned goods. I'm just waiting for her to kill lots of people with botulism. Do other things for money but don't sell food.

Judy Aron said...

Pinget... Wow .. are you afraid much? Brainwashed is more like it. You think the government stamp of approval on carnival food is a guarantee you won't get sick? The state assures NOTHING! and if you trust State assurances on your health and safety then you are truly mistaken and foolish to boot.

So - you'd like to see that woman selling canned goods kill people - that might make you right - well I will wager she knows what she is doing when it comes to canned foods and probably has done it longer than you are alive.

Go to your local Friendly's and catch a glimpse of "safe food handling" - Hah! Better yet - go take a look at roach infested restaurants that are licensed by the State.

Please - take your statist nonsense and your fear somewhere else. As for me - I would buy locally made - homemade - anytime - anywhere. I don't need the State's useless and arbitrary "stamp of approval"

Anonymous said...

The comment: "There's plenty of "unsafe food" being sold - how about Twinkies and Big Macs? You can get cancer and die from the crap that in those things."

Tells you all you need to know. Twinkie derangement syndrome and fear of big macs. What, exactly, is in a big mac that causes cancer??? I defy you to prove that statement. Maybe it's the ketchup or the beef. Maybe the bread in the bun is radioactive or the lettuce came from Mexico.
It is impossible to take someone serious who is afraid of twinkies or big macs. Don't get me wrong! I have heard the meme and know that indeed some people spread their food biases as though they got them from god. But it's just food. Sugar won't kill you. We have the healthiest food in the world and that is for the most part thanks to the FDA. Does government go to far sometimes? Of course, but food safety is important and it can only be managed nation wide by the government. It is our job to elect good people so that the job of making sure our food is safe is done correctly.

Watch out! I see a twinkie hiding in your cupboard!!

Judy Aron said...

Oh yes anonymous - Tell's ME all I need to know! Why don't you fill yourself with this garbage:

Out of the thirty-nine ingredients in a Twinkie there are a few recognizable ones: flour, sugar, salt, baking soda, water and a trace of egg.

As for the rest, be prepared for incomprehensible and barely pronounceable ingredients that resemble industrial materials more than foodstuffs. Here is a sampling:

The cake:

* Lecithin is an emulsifier made from soy. It's also used in paint to keep pigments evenly dispersed.
* Diacetyl mimics the taste of butter, since the real stuff would go rancid on a store shelf.
* Cornstarch is a common thickener. But it's more often used to make cardboard and packing peanuts.
* Yellow No. 5 & Red No. 40 give the cake the golden look of eggs.
* Sorbic acid, the only actual preservative in Twinkies, comes from petroleum.

The filling

* Shortening (in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and/or beef fat) is the main ingredient.
* Polysorbate 60 is a gooey substance that helps replace cream and eggs at a fraction of the cost. It's derived from corn, palm oil and petroleum.
* Cellulose gum gives the crème filling a smooth, slippery feel.
* Artificial vanillin is synthesized in petrochemical plants. The real thing comes from finicky tropical orchids that are pollinated by hand on the one day they bloom.

You call that healthy?
Good thing it is blessed by the FDA!
You can eat that over processed garbage.. I won't.
Happy eating!

Oh and as for the Big Mac...
One Big Mac has 540 calories, 10 grams of saturated fat and 1040 milligrams of sodium... 29 grams of total fat, 75mg of cholesterol and 45g of carbohydrates.

Yeah - enough of those will clog your arteries and kill you - along with the poor quality of the meat that's in there containing all kinds of anti-biotics and crap the beef is fed.. but it's blessed by your holy FDA - eat up.

I believe it is you who has the derangement issue if you think this kind of food is healthy.

With the FDA at the helm how come Americans are obese and unhealthy? with kids having heart problems and diabetes running rampant? - must be their diet... blessed by the FDA of course!

Keep eating crap!

Anonymous - Get real!

Anonymous said...

What has become of American that having a lemonade stand (or growing a vegetable garden) are now literally subversive acts. It is very sad.

Anonymous said...

If the dairy were forced to list all the ingredients in raw milk you wouldn't recognize them either. Twinkies don't kill raw milk does.

In response to the comment that if I don't want to drink raw milk then just don't drink it: I absolutely agree with you. Raise a goat or cow and drink raw milk. I don't care, I am not opposed to you or anyone drinking raw milk. What the FDA is doing is trying to prevent raw milk from entering the nations food system. They are chraged with protecting the food supply and raw milk is dangerous. It is true that most people do not die from drinking raw milk but it does indeed kill people especially in countries where there is no FDA to require pasteurization.

Judy Aron said...

Anonymous - I hate to break it to you - but this nation's food supply is far from "safe" because of the FDA. People die from food borne illnesses just the same. I would argue that the FDA has allowed lots of crap (including medications) into the marketplace because they are corrupt. Twinkies don't kill? No, they just cause obesity and the illnesses that accompany that.
I am so sick of food Nazis who think the state knows all what's best for us.
If you don't care what people eat then stop trying to convince us that the State knows better what we should eat and what we should not eat. Consumers should be able to buy Twinkies, raw milk and whatever else they want to buy and leave the State out of it.
In countries where there is no FDA people seem to do just fine... and if you think not then show me some solid statistics to prove otherwise.
I see nothing wrong with raw milk - I know plenty of people who drink it regularly.
Meanwhile Monsanto is poisoning us with the FDA's blessing.
Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

You are mixing apples and oranges and I'm not sure if it is accidental or that you need to do it to prove your point.

Once again: You can drink raw milk. The FDA is not stopping you from drinking raw milk. It is stopping raw milk from entering the food pipeline. You cannot sell or give away raw milk. That way if Mrs. Gonzalas makes Queso blanco from milk she bought from farmer Jones it won't kill half her family and dinner guests. Raw milk is dangerous (hence the need for pastuerization) and it kills people every year, every month, every week, BUT not in the U.S. That point is important because thanks to the FDA while a 1000 or 2000 people a year might die from raw milk in Mexico usually zero die from raw milk in the U.S. The exception is when someone like Mrs. Gonzalos makes Queso blanco using her family traditional methods. That is what happens when this potentially dangerous food becomes introduced into the food supply

Regarding the oft quoted statement "I know people who do _____ all the time and are just fine" I had a friend how liked to skydive and bragged about how many he had done, last I remember he had finished 750 jumps. I had that friend but he passed away one day between 1000' and 0' when his chute didn't open. He would often make the same statement about how many jumps he had made and he was fine...

Judy Aron said...

I respect your opinion and position Anonymous - but I have to say that I am not "mixing apples and oranges" - The truth is that the FDA is only catering to the dairy lobby and this has little to do with "food safety" (the FDA allows other crap into the so-called food pipeline).

Less than 1 percent of the milk consumed in America is raw, which is most unfortunate as raw milk is a highly health-promoting food. Public health officials warn that raw milk poses the risk of transmitting bacteria such as listeria, E. coli and salmonella, but pasteurizing the milk kills these bacteria while extending the milk's shelf life, which also happens to be more profitable for the dairy industry. (follow the money on this one)

While it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. But it seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists.

Except for a brief hiatus in 1990, raw milk has always been for sale commercially in California, usually in health food stores and even in some grocery stores. Millions of people consumed commercial raw milk during that period and although the health department kept an eagle eye open for any possible evidence of harm, not a single incidence was reported. During the same period, there were many instances of contamination in pasteurized milk, some of which resulted in death.

Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidolphilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in many people's opinion, the finest source of calcium available.

People who have food and germ phobias allow the FDA to scare them about raw milk and other similar foods and beverages.

If anyone is mixing apples and oranges it is you - as jumping from airplanes has nothing to do with drinking raw milk.

You have just as much of a chance of dying or getting sick from raw milk as you do any other food. People die from eating shrimp/shellfish too... should we stop people from selling/preparing and serving this?

Perhaps you have some sort of cultural bias too since it seems like you don't think Hispanic people can prepare foods safely.

You seem quite sure that the government/FDA is "protecting" the food pipeline... yeah they are protecting it for the large food $upplier$ who probably pay them very well to enact rule$ and regulation$ which benefit them.

Anonymous said...

I disagree that raw milk contains anything of value that is destroyed by pasteurization.

It is ludicrious to think the dairy industry cares if raw milk is available.

I agree food contaminates and certain foods not stored or prepared correctly can be harmful. You believe I am singling out raw milk whereas I am only including it in the list of dangerous foods.

The cultural bias remark is beneath you. I used Queso blanco because it was the most recent public example of raw milk causing illness. It isn't as simple as being able to prepare food safely if the main ingredient is unsafe and you cannot determine this simple fact.

I don't think the FDA is perfect but I do actually believe they are doing the correct thing based on science and health knowledge as we know it today. I don't think the raw milk example can in anyway be twisted as an example of the government being bought by the food industry. I simply don't think raw milk is anything big food producers ever concern themselves with.

Judy Aron said...

A) You obviously are taking a Statist position meaning that the State should decide what people should eat or not eat via their rules and regulations having to do with production and sales of food.

B) The State and its agencies are indeed corrupt - and their food safety rules are in fact political in nature as they are controlled by agribusiness and drug companies. (to think that the dairy industry does not care about raw milk or pasteurization rules is ridiculous - it's like saying Monsanto doesn't care if I save seeds.. they in fact do care and are trying to put a stop to it)

C) The FDA allows the sale of other foods that make people sick - shellfish for one - why do you not rail against the sale of those possibly contaminated foods?

D) People should be able to buy and sell what they want when they want as personal transactions between each other - the state should butt out - and especially in the case of lemonade stands which is what this post was all about to begin with.

Pasteurized cow's milk is the number one allergic food in this country... probably because all the healthy stuff is killed along with any contaminants. In fact, our immune systems have been compromised because of the germaphobe mentality. I won't even go into the issue of the antibiotics, pesticides and growth hormones and the fact that nearly all commercial dairy cows are raised on grains, not grass, like they were designed to.

Truth is FDA or no.. people will still die of food borne illnesses, and there are millions of people who enjoy raw milk with no adverse results. They should be able to buy it when they want from whomever they want.

If you don't want to drink it - then don't.

Anonymous said...

Monsanto does not care if you save seeds. They have made a product that is patented and you cannot "steal" their patent rights by saving seeds produced from their product. Would you argue I can print your words in my own blog and claim they are my words?

Shellfish is a good example to support your opinion. I have never understood how a restaurant can sell raw oysters. As before I fully support your right to eat raw oysters but selling them seems risky. But other then that most shellfish (and fish) is intended to be cooked. If raw milk was intended to be cooked before consumption then it wouldn't be an issue. Having said that I ate Ceviche once and it was delicious. I haven't eaten it since because I have common sense and know raw fish is dangerous. Would you eat ceviche as often as you would drink raw milk?

You are correct that people should be able to buy and sell what they want. The problem is that in the past raw milk is introduced into the food stream and the people consuming the products are unaware that they contain raw milk. This is unfair to the consumer who should have the right to buy safe food from vendors. However I would be willing to compromise with you on this issue. If you or anyone selling or using raw milk was held personally responsible for any damage it causes (and if you had no assets then post a bond), AND if you informed the consumers that they were getting raw milk or products containing raw milk, then I would be OK with the whole raw milk thing.

People do indeed die from food borne illnesses, I believe about 6,000 a year in the U.S. That number would be tens of thousands without the FDA. It appears to me that they want to reduce that even more. I am in favor of that effort.

Judy Aron said...

Government data proves Raw Milk is safe:


"WASHINGTON, DC June 22, 2011: Data gleaned from U.S. government websites and government-sanctioned reports on foodborne illnesses show that the risk of contracting foodborne illness by consuming raw milk is much smaller than the risk of becoming ill from other foods, according to research by Dr. Ted Beals, MD, appearing in the Summer, 2011 issue of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

Using government figures for foodborne illness for the entire population, Dr. Beals has shown that you are about thirty-five thousand times more likely to get sick from other foods than you are from raw milk, says Fallon Morell. And with good management practices in small grass-based dairies offering fresh unprocessed whole milk for direct human consumption, we may be able to reduce the risk even further.

According to Pete Kennedy, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, FDA has an agenda that has nothing to do with protecting the public health. The agency wants to deny freedom of choice and impose its views on what foods the people should and should not be consuming."

... Anonymous - please take your alarmist Statist position somewhere else.

Anonymous said...

Often with statistics there isn't enough information to understand what supports the claim. Is it as simple as the fact that very very little raw milk is consumed in this country and when compared with the risk from foods that 90% of the population consumes raw milk doesn't look that bad? If all milk were simply not pastuerized and 300 million people were drinking it would the number of people harmed by raw milk increase dramatically?

Another point; can you really trust what the "Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund" says? They obviously have a bias and I doubt they report informtaion that affects them negatively.

I will end my comments on this. I enjoy your blog and agree with most of your posts.

Judy Aron said...

Yeah whatever - no one is saying that all milk should be unpasteurized. There is nothing wrong with giving consumers a choice and labeling bottles appropriately.

The raw milk food raid in California is just another example of how far we have come to be a police state. That in and of itself is disconcerting. I think we have more pressing criminal activity then some hippies selling raw milk to people that want it.

Anonymous - you can say that the statistics are skewed - that the reports are biased... whatever... the fact is that there will always be food borne illnesses - shellfish - milk - bad eggs. People will die from eating stuff no matter what the FDA does or doesn't do... and I am not convinced that the number of deaths decrease with more or new FDA regulations. What does decrease is competition. They put people out of business. They are attempting to do this again with the so-called "Safe Cosmetics Act" which is another bunch of stupid legislation designed to put smaller companies out of business so they cannot compete with the big fish... and it is all in the name of "consumer safety".

The FDA makes ridiculous arbitrary rules and regulations and you should understand that it is not the bastion of goodness that you portray it to be... that it is a body corrupt with politics and payoffs. We are no less safer because of them. They too manipulate and skew findings to push their own agendas which too often benefit huge agri-business and Big Pharma while stifling their competition and shackling with cumbersome and needless regulation.

Thanks for the exchange - and thanks for keeping it civil.