I wish the debate that’s been going on here about the risks associated with raw milk might have taken place yesterday, in the Albany, NY, courtroom where a hearing was held over whether Barb and Steve Smith should be held in contempt of court.
Instead, the discussion was about search warrants, the U.S. constitution’s fourth amendment, the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets regulations–all in relation to whether the Smiths might be jailed.
But like the extended discussion following my previous post, there was no resolution in the end. When the hour-long arguments by the opposing lawyers was completed, the judge, John C. Egan Jr., said he was taking the matter under advisement. “I’ve heard enough," he said as he adjourned the late-afternoon session. "This is simple."
The lawyers present with Ag & Markets officials, and the dozen or so supporters of the Smiths all looked at each other trying to figure out what the judge meant by that remark, since the arguments were anything but simple.
The Ag & Markets lawyer, Larry Swartz, argued that by not cooperating with state inspectors holding a search warrant seeking access to the dairy’s locked coolers holding raw milk products, during two visits last December, “This is a denial of access, it is a contempt of the inspection order.” He maintained that, even aside from the search warrants, Ag and Markets regulations allow the agency “access to all farms.”
Gary Cox, the lawyer for the Smiths and Meadowsweet Dairy LLC, argued that there were assorted problems with the administrative search warrant being used by Ag & Markets. It didn’t specify that the agents could use force, was open-ended in how long it could be used, and left the determination of probable cause to the agency rather than a judge.
“They’re operating under the supposition that this warrant goes on forever,” Gary said of Ag and Markets. Moreover, he added, “I’ve never seen an instance where an agency is delegated authority to determine probable cause.”
The judge seemed to be listening attentively, and interrupted Gary a number of times to inquire into precedent cases.
The bottom line for now is that the Smiths are still standing despite the state’s two efforts to have courts come down on the couple and their limited liability company that provides raw milk to 130 or so members. First, the state tried to get the Smith’s suit dismissed last month, and that failed. Then, yesterday, the state tried to convince a judge to cite the Smiths for contempt, but the judge put off ruling.
***
On the other coast, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures is still standing as well after three tests for coliforms in his dairy’s milk. He failed the first two tests, and a third failure earlier this week might have forced him to halt production. But he passed the third one, with less than 10 coliforms per milliliter, as required.
But this is a three-of-five situation, so he has to pass the next two to avoid possible production interruptions.
***
I’m told occasionally that state agriculture regulators read this blog. When they tell me directly, I always encourage them to participate in the discussion. They never do, that I’m aware of. But I was glad to see MP participate, since he sounded like he/she could be a regulator, or public health type. I was just sorry to see MP get so easily offended at the end. Surely he/she is tougher than that. A few barely personal insults and MP is gone? If you really believe in what you’re arguing, MP, you should be able to take a little heat. Or were the arguments too persuasive?
By the way, in response to Jeff’s comment, I’d just like to say that he’s incorrect when he says less than ten people a year get sick from pasteurized milk. Four died last year, which is four more than died from raw milk. But many more times that get sick each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control statistics on illnesses from raw milk between 1973 and 2005. There was one outbreak where 18,000 became ill in 1985 alone. Even so, I wouldn’t suggest that pasteurized milk is more dangerous than raw milk in terms of pathogens. But there is more to the “safety” argument than pathogens, and MP, Jeff, and others prefer to simply slam that possibility.
And on flu shots, it’s worth keeping in mind that not too long ago, it was only the elderly and otherwise immune-suppressed who were advised to get flu shots at all. Now all adults are advised to get them, and we’re thinking of requiring kids to get them, as well. There is risk associated with all vaccines—the full extent isn’t completely understood. But even in the short term people get sick from vaccines.
I thought the first test at OPDC under the new regulations occurred after the AB1604 fiasco, i.e., on or around January 24, 2008, and that testing was then to occur at 30 day intervals thereafter. The latest test, which OPDC passed, should have been only the second test under the new regulations.
How did the CDFA get to have OPDC’s milk tested for coliform levels three times within 1 month or so?
Thanks,
Dave Hopton
simple as i’m a puppet for the protectionists so these clowns are going to jail.
or simple as i rule on established law and the state is gonna get tarred and feathered here for disrupting legal contracted business.
?
i don’t know if the smiths sell other farm purducts to the public, but if they didn’t, would they be subject to any regulation by gov’t?
Do factory farm daries have to under-go this testing? If not, why not? Isn’t there supposed to be equality? (said with tongue in cheek-reality isn’t always as it should be)
The tests can apparently be conducted at the discretion of the California Department of Food and Agriculture. OP is getting them on a more frequent basis, and Claravale on a less frequent basis.
And Sylvia, good thing your tongue in cheek. These regulators do as they wish, and I suspect they have a score or two they want to settle with Mark McAfee.
The vaccine argument is similar to how I’ve been trying to think about raw milk. It will never be a black and white good or bad issue. It has to be decided individually – according to the person, where you plan to live and travel, and even the individual vaccines. I am asked all the time do I "believe" in vaccinating kids and animals.
It just isn’t the right question.
What we need to ask is which vaccines are used for the economic benefit over the health risks, killed cell or live cell, at what age and frequency, and on and on. And then the question that is real – do the parents have the knowledge and resources to otherwise boost the kid’s immune system in other ways, including exposing them to mumps and measles and chicken pox and taking time off work to take care of them. Because just not vaccinating isn’t a wise option either. There is a lot of work to keeping a child safe from disease and build immunity.
For most parents it is too complex, too much work, and too frightening to ask their MD to take the time to treat their child in a different way.
We’ve made the arguments too simplistic – for or against raw milk, for or against vaccines. By delving deeper into the smaller details we can learn a lot more about what is important in these decisions and find not only common ground but also about what health and safety really mean to us and how to live more fully.
By scaring people instead, that conversation and discussion gets preempted and we have to instead look for an enemy to defeat.
Put me down as neither for or against vaccines, I just want people to be able to make good informed decisions, and to retain the freedom to do so. And that goes for raw milk as well.
Just chew on this for a moment:
It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it. Upton Sinclair
How about directing all of our energy towards securing the right to have access to real milk instead of trying to prove that it is better? The science is there but our right to access has been usurped. I would have to agree with Ron Schmid. If we have to depend on a judge to give us this right we are in trouble.
Everyone should be informed of more than just the basics. How many people really understand the "studies" on drugs? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10098258 In a THREE YEAR study–Only @8500 women between the ages of 16 & 26 were given the HPV vacc? That isn’t many. The vacc only reduced the risk 0.2%? Not worth the side effects. And what will outcomes be 5 yrs, 10 yrs or 20 yrs down the road? We don’t know yet(though there are stories creeping out about deaths, neuro problems,etc). So those who’ve recieved the vacc may have GYN problems at some point as they age.
A few years ago, when the bush administration said that first responders/healthcare personal were to get the Small Pox vacc…I read about the then current studies. They were not pretty. I opted out. Had I not had the use of the internet, I’d not have learned what I did.
Food is no different. If you educate people on how the food is grown, (with or without chemicals), how it is processed,etc, many would be shocked and probably disbelieving of the truth. What is in a chickenmcnugget? Or what are the ingredients in regular shampoo? What are the potential side effects of all these chemicals? You can teach people, but until they actually have an adverse reaction, they aren’t going to care (I am generalizing).
I was first drawn to the WAPF because the data was just so good. Price was clearly an exceptionally good scientist (an obsessive and careful observer and documenter) and was immensely logical in process. He sought out health, and worked backward from there to discover its underpinnings. Such anthropological study is extremely potent if the study groups are segregated (i.e. isolated) population units, and Prices subjects were just that.
In short, Prices data is some of the most valuable and important we have today. (We are extremely fortunate, by the way, that Price did his work when he did, since shortly afterward his study groups began blending with other cultureshomogenized as it wereas globalization took hold.)
I am therefore puzzled by attitudes like MPs. Anyone with an open mind and a modicum of experience in scientific analysis ought to be very, very impressed with Prices work.
I can only conclude that MPs dismissive stance is the result of prejudice, and is stated as a result of faith more than reason. Indeed, MPs presumption of the validity of government data, as he made clear with his statements about the USDA, indicates that he is devoted more to theme than to science. Bigger data machines, MP implies, are better. Of course that can sometimes be so, but in this case he is floating his boat on a river that is a mile wide and an inch deep.
MP stands as an emblem of why this debate will not end soon, and why Stu McCarty is correct about the need to assert our food-choice rights while the scientific banter goes on. (Regular readers of this blog of course will remember seeing his idea expressed many times before, by many others. No matterits a notion that deserves frequent airing.)
We experienced a severe adverse reaction with one of our children and I would be glad to share my story if anyone would like to email me for details.
Do we know who funded the studies the Price’s research?
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/02/news/top_stories/21_36_423_1_08.txt
Does anyone have any info on this?
The article certainly leans in a particular direction and the cynical side of me is wondering if this is part of Marler’s plan to get a sympathetic jury (or taint the potential jury pool so much that OPDC decides to settle-out-of-court, which is I’m sure what Marler prefers). For instance, it mentions the Martins’ medical costs, but implies that the costs come from out of the Martins’ pocket. But I seem to remember reading on this blog (perhaps from Mary herself) that their medical insurance covered the majority, if not all of the expenses. So I doubt covering already incurred out-of-pocket expenses is the primary motivation for the lawsuit.
And as others have pointed out, it’s hard to see how the child will have a "normal" life with such a lengthy lawsuit as part of the family life for the next few years. It will be like another person added to the family, dominating conversation, wedging itself into the family schedule and plans, and anchoring the family to a horrific time and place. It’s hard for me to see how the perceived benefits of such a suit can offset the negatives in this particular situation.
Like the Martins, I also have one child, a son the same age as the Martin boy (whose favorite part of school is also playing "wall ball" at recess and who also has just begun to start liking reading). We also live in So Cal, not so very far away. Like Mary, I am very choosy about the food for the family. So in some ways, I can draw a lot of parallels to their family. It was heart-breaking to read the accounts of the illness and very easy to understand the parents’ fear for their only child.
But my son was drinking OP milk (and still does) without problem during the same time frame as the Martin boy (n fact, during the milk recall, he asked when we would get it again), so I guess that is where the parallel ends. I have a lot of respect for the way Mary pursued credible information about raw dairy and food-borne illness in the aftermath of her son’s illness, but I’m having a hard time seeing how the lawsuit makes anything "right" or "better" in the long run. Of course, it’s hard to predict the long-term consequences of the illness, even with seemingly good health now, but how does the lawsuit change the future health of the child or benefit the family in a positive way? That part is harder to imagine.
But I’m wishing I could press David for more information, since I work on this issue in California. Since the demise of AB 1604, we have heard that discussions have been taking place behind closed doors, and that Nicole Parra wants to set up a commission to make a recommendation. However, no one is talking. Your note today is about the first information I’ve run across since 1735 went back into effect at the first of the year. Nicole Parra is retiring from the legislature as of November 1st, so we now have less than 8 months for whatever rulemaking process we can get.
Do you (or does anyone) know what the process is like that is going on in private now? Is no one going to file an injunction against 1735? Where is the producers’ lawsuit headed? And what about the flatly criminal conduct involved in getting 1735 signed into law in the first place? Anyone working on that?
Sorry, just desperate for info! If anyone knows anything, I would really appreciate hearing it. Thank you everyone —
When that milk was recalled, I had 1/2 jug in my fridge, my friend had just finished one and opened the other. Neither of us tossed what we had. Neither of us became ill. It does seem strange that from all the milk sold at that time, if it was truely the raw milk, then why didn’t more people become ill?
As to the private lawsuit, these people are entitled to bring a suit under the circumstances. They must do so by October of this year, as far as I can tell, because of statute of limitations issues. However, the timing of the suit coming so close after passage of the new law, is curious.
If OPDC can prove its case, it has nothing to fear. However, I would be extremely cautious in predicting what a jury will do.
Do you know that it’s not possible to get an injunction against enforcement of a law that was passed in such a way? That there has to be a concrete action (like closing a dairy) before injunction can be sought?
This is something I’ve been wondering about, and you sound like you have a legal background, so I’d be interested in your thoughts. You too, Steve, or anyone else who knows this stuff. Thank you very much again —