[dgacmu]

To be more clear: The commerce clause was interpreted such as to allow the federal government to impose limits on agricultural production even when the food is being used to feed your own animals.

We already have numerous such restrictions (e.g., brewing beer).

A key point in this, in fact, was that it doesn't matter if it's being produced for your own (animals) consumption vs. for sale.

But that has nothing to do with whether the pure act of raising your own food is restraint of trade, absent restrictions on production. If you were raising the food in a way that it was legal to sell it, you're raising it in a way that's legal for your own animals to eat as well.

[anonbanker]

you should read deeper into Wickard. SCOTUS decalred washing your dishes to be considered commerce. For more information on the extent of the Commerce Clause into your life, I'd suggest looking at Clarence Thomas' dissent in Raich v. Gonzalez. it's an eye-opener.

[dgacmu]

Oh, absolutely. (I've read wickard, but not the dissent you mention). I was trying to clarify that the issue was not that it is somehow illegal to eat your own food. The issue was that there was a federal limit that was being violated, and - as you note - the commerce clause was used to justify why even a seemingly local use was subject to federal regulation.