- The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that Amish farmers Amos and Rebecca Miller can continue selling raw milk products out-of-state while their lawsuit proceeds, reigniting debates over food freedom, individual rights and government regulation.
- The Millers, who operate Amos Miller Organic Farm, have faced years of legal challenges from state and federal authorities. They argue their out-of-state sales are protected under constitutional principles, including the Commerce Clause and the right to purchase traditional foods directly from producers.
- In January 2024, Pennsylvania authorities raided the Millers’ farm, alleging E. coli and listeria contamination linked to illnesses in children. The Millers dispute these claims, accusing the state of overreach and flawed evidence in obtaining the search warrant.
- The case reflects a growing movement advocating for food freedom and reduced government interference in food production. Several states, like West Virginia, have recently expanded raw milk access, highlighting a demand for consumer choice and traditional farming practices.
- The Millers’ case underscores the difficulties small farmers face navigating complex regulations designed for large-scale producers. Their legal victory is seen as a win for food freedom advocates, homesteaders and those fighting government overreach in agriculture.
In a landmark decision that has reignited the national conversation about food freedom and individual rights, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled last week that Amish farmers Amos and Rebecca Miller may continue selling raw milk products outside the state while a lawsuit against them proceeds. The ruling, hailed as a “big win” by their attorney Robert Barnes, underscores the growing tension between small-scale farmers, government regulations and the right of consumers to choose what they eat.
The Millers, who operate Amos Miller Organic Farm in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, have been at the center of a legal battle with state and federal authorities for years. Their farm, which produces raw milk, cheese, meat and eggs, operates on a membership model, where customers join the farm to purchase products directly. While federal law prohibits the interstate sale of raw milk, the Millers argue that their out-of-state sales are protected under constitutional principles, including the Commerce Clause and the right to purchase traditional foods directly from producers.
The case began in earnest in January 2024, when the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture raided the Millers’ farm, seizing products and effectively shutting down their operations. The raid followed allegations that two children in Michigan and New York had fallen ill from E. coli linked to the Millers’ raw dairy products. State officials also claimed that samples from the farm tested positive for listeria, a harmful bacteria.
However, the Millers and their legal team have pushed back against these claims, arguing that the state’s actions were overreaching and based on flawed evidence. Attorney Robert Barnes accused the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture of violating its own regulations during the search and alleged that the search warrant was obtained through false statements.
The court’s recent ruling upheld a March 2024 decision by a Lancaster County trial court, which found that the Millers were not clearly violating Pennsylvania statutes by selling raw milk products outside the state. The Commonwealth Court also acknowledged that the Millers raised “potentially meritorious constitutional challenges” to Pennsylvania’s Milk Sanitation Law, including questions about the right to travel and the fundamental right to purchase traditional foods directly from producers.
This decision is a significant victory for the Millers and their supporters, who see the case as a broader fight for food freedom. “The case of Amos Miller decides the future of food freedom in America,” Barnes told The Defender. “Do we decide what we put in our bodies, or does the government?”
The debate over raw milk is deeply polarizing. Public health agencies, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), warn that raw milk is unsafe to consume, citing the risk of harmful bacteria like E. coli and listeria. They advocate for pasteurized milk, which is heated to kill bacteria, as a safer alternative.
On the other hand, raw milk advocates argue that unpasteurized milk is more nutritious and offers health benefits, particularly for the immune system. Many of the Millers’ customers swear by their products, claiming they are essential for their well-being.
The Millers’ case is part of a larger movement pushing back against government regulations on food production and sales. In recent years, several states have passed laws expanding access to raw milk. For example, West Virginia legalized raw milk sales in March 2024, and Louisiana is considering similar legislation. These developments reflect a growing demand for food sovereignty – the right of individuals to produce, sell and consume food without excessive government interference.
Small farmers lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory requirements
The Millers’ legal battle also highlights the challenges faced by small-scale farmers who operate outside the conventional food system. Unlike large-scale producers, these farmers often lack the resources to navigate complex regulatory requirements, which can include costly permits, inspections and testing.
Despite these obstacles, the Millers have garnered widespread support from food freedom advocates, homesteaders and preppers who see their fight as a stand against government overreach. Their case has become a rallying cry for those who believe in the importance of preserving traditional farming practices and protecting consumer choice.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the Millers’ case could set a precedent for how states regulate raw milk and other traditional foods. For now, the Commonwealth Court’s decision allows the Millers to continue selling their products out-of-state, providing a temporary reprieve for their farm and their customers.
This victory is a reminder that activism and advocacy can make a difference. From West Virginia’s raw milk legislation to the reinstatement of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for meat products, recent wins for food freedom demonstrate the power of grassroots efforts to challenge unjust laws and protect individual rights.
As the fight for food freedom continues, the Millers’ case serves as a testament to the resilience of small farmers and the enduring importance of standing up for what is right. In the words of Robert Barnes, “This win for Amos Miller is a win for all small farmers, for the Amish and for everyone who cares about food freedom.”
For now, the Millers can continue their work, providing their members with the raw milk products they cherish. But the broader battle over food freedom is far from over, and the outcome of this case could shape the future of agriculture and consumer rights in America for years to come.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
