Attorneys for the federalgovernment have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in
Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food
they choose.
The brief was filed April 26 in support of a motion to dismiss a
lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered
access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S.
Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department
of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own
bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not
choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly
unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain
any food they wish," the government has argued.
Attorneys for the federalgovernment have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in
Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food
they choose.
The brief was filed April 26 in support of a motion to dismiss a
lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.
"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered
access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S.
Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department
of Justice.
"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own
bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not
choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly
unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain
any food they wish," the government has argued.
