Shell game in New York City. If you hang around certain areas of New York City, or ride its subways long enough, you’ll be pushed to play a shell game. It looks easy enough–just find the pea under one of three thimbles that are quickly moved around. Of course, it’s all a con, and if you’re crazy enough to bet, you can lose significant amounts of money.
I mention the shell game because we can expect the L.A. County District Attorney, and its alphabet soup of supporting agencies, to employ the shell game strategy in beating up on Rawesome Food Club in advance of a trial, by dribbling out various accusations.
The latest government accusations suggest that the Rawesome Three are guilty of various tax infractions on top of the raw-milk-sales accusations. In addition, James Stewart, the Rawesome manager, is being accused of money “laundering” and Sharon Palmer of fraudulently re-selling food at farmers markets that she purchased elsewhere.
The new charges have come to light because of motions made by the state against James Stewart, Sharon Palmer, and Victoria Bloch to apply a state law that prohibits defendants from using for bail any money obtained via criminal activity.
The state thus had to present to the judge its evidence.
The motions accuse each of the three defendants of failing to file state income tax returns for 2009. That’s not automatically a serious matter for someone who had little income, or simply isn’t well organized.
But for Stewart and Palmer, the alleged financial problems go beyond not filing a state income tax return. According to the motion for Stewart, “evidence gathered suggests that the defendants have not reported or underreported the income they derive from these illegal enterprises and that money laundering statutes may have been violated as well.”
In the case of Stewart, “A review of documents seized in search warrants executed on June 30, 2010, that were analyzed by the (CA) Franchise Tax Bureau, reveals that Stewart and his Rawesome business could have generated an estimated $526,464 annually. Neither Stewart, nor his Rawesome enterprise filed 2009 California Resident Income Tax Returns, which, if done with intent to evade paying tax, is a felony.”
Specifically, the motion describes Stewart’s possible “‘laundering’ the financial proceeds of his business by using customers’ blank checks or money orders to pay his suppliers and thus not reporting or recording the income generated by the sale of food, dairy products, supplements, meats, and non-food items. He also has failed to report the income generated by the $25 annual fee charged to members in order to shop at Rawesome and a computer generated list indicates there may be as many as 2,917 members.”
As for Palmer, the state alleges she didn’t file her California income tax return for 2009, though she had at least $70,000 of bank deposits for the last four months of 2009.
And then there’s the matter previously alleged by Aajonus Vonderplanitz that Palmer sold food from outside sources as if it came from her farm. The state alleges that invoices and records “revealed that she was buying thousands of dollars worth of meat, poultry, and eggs from other vendors and reselling it at farmer’s markets and at Rawesome, despite claims and advertising that it was raised on her farm and not fed commercial feed.”
So how does the shell game analogy fit into any of this? First off, the new government charges are unrelated to the attack on and closing of Rawesome. If the government has a problem with the taxes paid or not paid by any of the defendants, it should be acting separately against the individuals on those matters. Same with the alleged outsourcing by Sharon Palmer of foods she sold at farmers markets and at Rawesome. The government should file charges of fraud against her.
No, the real issue is contained in this statement from Kelly Sakir, the L.A. County District Attorney lawyer filing the case against Stewart: “Stewart has none of the permits necessary to construct any type of structure on the property…Despite being ordered to close on June 30, 2010 until proper permits and licenses were obtained, James Stewart and/or his employees removed the posted closure notice and re-opened for business. Stewart and his attorney, Anthony Blain, appeared at the July 1, 2010 LACDPH hearing and said that they rejected its authority and jurisdiction and would reopen as usual and defy their orders.”
Rawesome operated as a private member-only organization because its members wanted access to foods unavailable via the permitted system. I have been told by Rawesome suppliers that Stewart used customers’ blank checks and money orders to pay the suppliers to be consistent with the leasing arrangements whereby members’ food came from farms that Rawesome had leasing agreements with. The members’ checks thus were used to pay the farmers.
The heart of the matter for a judge and jury is whether consumers can enter into such private leasing or herdshare arrangements that are similar to arrangements commonly used on a daily basis by all kinds of businesses in the U.S., to obtain their food.
Similarly, it’s up to members to decide if they want to deal with a farmer like Sharon Palmer amid allegations she has outsourced food. If she’s charged by the state with fraudulently outsourcing food at farmers markets, then that’s a matter between her and the state.
Rawesome volunteers overseeing the club are asking members to stay focused on the real issues. “We are a test case for the new powers given the FDA by the Food Safety Modernization Act which we believe are unconstitutional and whose jurisdiction does not apply to us as a private members food club.”
The Rawesome club is encouraging its members to not be distracted by the government’s shell game. “Our situation is one in which we members have to be highly organized, direct serious efforts toward fundraising, continue protesting and staying in the media, and stay positive. In-fighting is inappropriate. We need to close ranks.”
It’s tempting for all who support the principles Rawesome stands for to moan and groan that founders James Stewart and Aajonus Vonderplanitz screwed up on this or that matter, and isn’t it too bad we don’t have a better case on which to pin our food rights argument. The reality is that the opponents of food rights are choosing their targets, putting proponents on the defensive via cases like this or Traditional Foods Minnesota or Daniel Allgyer in Pennsylvania. We need to avoid the temptation to play the government’s shell game, and keep our attention on the fundamental matters of food rights.
The potential for what you are calling a "shell game" is exactly why I have suggested for over three years now that the movement needs to police fraud when it comes up. The Vonderplanitz accusation is 9 months old at this point and should have been vetted inside months ago. If they really were acting fraudulent, the movement should have dealt with it before authorities. Had that happened, there would not have been the same sort of dirty laundry hanging around that there is now. If the allegations are true, there might have even been a chance to keep Palmer out of Farmageddon. As it is, the movement lacks effective leadership to deal with these issues, a fact which will severely limit any political potential it might have had.
Amanda
Unfortunately, this movement is very resistant to self-regulation, as we have witnessed time and again on this forum. There is so much ultra-libertarian ideological baggage, that ends up coming back to bite us in the behind, in situations like this.
I don't know how the movement should handle this case. Personally, I have a really hard time rallying behind the LA-3 now that all of these other charges have come to light, and especially when you consider that some these accusations originated from within the movement almost a year ago.
That's just my opinion of course.
Instead follow the instructions given in media management courses. When asked any sort of question….respond with your message….transition to our message using the available sound bite to teach teach teach.
Then….measure our progress years from now. Look back 5 or 10 years ago, we have made huge progress.
Al Capone was not caught for criminal activity, he was caught for IRS issues. Good thing to think about. I know at OPDC we spend time and money to assure that every little legal and tax consideration is in compliance.
The James and Aajonus crowd has never been keen on the rules of the US government. I am not keen on much of it either. But….I see the greater challenge. The only way that I can see to change the system is to stay in the system, feed it well and change it later. It is hard to do anything from jail.
Until the future happens, we must teach, stay out of trouble and build to the "tipping point"
As for the rest of us who are not part of Rawsome and stating "isn't it too bad we don't have a better case on which to pin our food rights argument," there is another case out there, and it is the one FTCLDF has filed in Santa Clara County on behalf of the herd share members. I am sure that the FDA and CDFA would like to make the Rawsome case get all the attention, but the case in Santa Clara County is probably more significant.
I certainly do not agree with the statements that have been made that the Rawsome case "is a gift." It is the case the opponents of the Raw Milk movement have decided to concentrate their efforts on, and it would seem for good reason. So if we are not going to "play the government's game", let's get some better media focus on the other herdshare programs that have been issued cease and desist orders around the state of California and bring their story to the public if we don't want Stewart and Palmer to be the face of the movement right now. The burden of shifting the emphasis away from the messy issues of Stewart and Palmer in the Rawsome situation really lies with the Rawsome members themselves. If their food was seized illegally, they need to fight for their rights and take their own separate action.
They are trying to make it harder to justify the right to food choice.
Calculated.??..not sure….but the right to reject governmental 'protection', is harder to make…. when you're in a court fighting for the right to be duped……
I have no firsthand knowledge of the dealings at Rawsome, but the stuff I have read is enough to raise a few eyebrows. Consumer trust is the foundation of raw milk. If we are fighting for the right to betray consumers, then what are we fighting for?
As usual, the ethically questionable producers are getting the spotlight and support while the ethically sound producers are being thrown under the bus by the movement. We saw this happen to Scott Trautman because he wanted food safety standards for raw milk production, and now we are seeing it happen to the California herdshares because they aren't just in it for a quick buck.
Again, I have no firsthand knowledge, I am just saying this as an outside observer. IMO, this is the just the natural consequence of the "free-for-all" ideology. Unless there is a genuine committment to ethical, sustainable, transparent, and safe raw milk production, this movement is headed for the gutters.
Mark M., you are wise and right. If you want to change real milk issues, you have to play by the other rules and be on the up and up. We do no good to the cause by allowing them the opportunity to convolute the two together.
David, while it is true that the gov't may be creating a shell game to sway public opinion, etc., they could also just be releasing the truth (in a way to benefit their case, but still the truth). In that case, we have to be very careful that while we stand for food rights, we join them in condemning any purposeful ethical lapses.
Bill, I would like evidence of your claims that the movement is "resistant to self-regulation"
It is like one other posters constant comments that WAPF people refuse to address food safety or talk about it, untrue.
It seems to me that most people on the forum are not against accountability and standards… they just are not for those being arbitrarily imposed by outside groups like RAWMI by force, especially legislative force that puts people who see things differently out of business or at a severe disadvantage. We have had enough years of special interests manipulating things to their economic gain by using "the public good" as a cover for their cloak and dagger elimination of competition.
Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them "lultra-libertarian ideological baggage" carriers or against transparency and accountability and high standards. They may not have identical standards as you would want, so why should you or any one person or group get to impose and decide for everyone else?
That is what they are opposed to and against.
and this one as well:
http://journal.livingfood.us/2011/08/14/food-for-thought-rawesome-and-healthy-family-farms-raids-and-other-raw-milk-news/
Going forward: Let raw milk advocates advocate. This case is not their hill to die on. Let the farmers/ranchers who are doing it right and by the book benefit from this fiasco. This is what a free market does. We consumers need to be protected from farmer fraud. I spoke with Diana today, the manager of the MarVista Farmers Market. She told me that she had just met with other Farmers Market managers to figure out what to do about fraud. They are forming a volunteer committee to investigate fraud, which I will definitely help see happen. I go to great lengths to buy my pastured meat and eggs. It pisses me off that this farmer could have ripped many health conscious good people off, like yourself.
If you are interested in being a part of this committee, please email Diana directly. We need all the help we can get: diana@marvistafarmersmarket.org
Rawesome Members: please seriously go forward as a buying co-op without James. Cross your eyes and dot your t's. bring the movement forward for food freedom, raw milk, sustainability (buying from CA producers and creating a bigger marker for CA producers for milk and eggs? how does that sound?). But do it with integrity, transparency, and tenacity. How about opening a bank account, for starters?
Kristen
I continue to be disappointed with the failure of many here to genuinely address food safety. The recent denial of the campy outbreak in the Carolina's is a perfect example. Simply because campy wasn't found in the particular sample from the particular batch that was sampled, doesn't mean the farm didn't cause an outbreak.
No one has a right to make other people sick.
Let me repeat myself:
NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO MAKE OTHER PEOPLE SICK.
If there is anything that was impressed on me, time and time again, in my years as a cheese monger, and then my extensive training as a licensed Wisconsin cheese maker, it is this. Food safety, food safety, food safety. This is your single biggest responsibility as a food producer — FOOD SAFETY!
For the broader movement for raw milk, food safety is not the goal, though, it is just a means to an end. The movement, it seems to me, seeks a sustainable, local, just, and democratic food system. And it looks like there are some who are willling to make a quick buck profiteering off this otherwise noble goal. Its too bad.
I hope that the California herdshares aren't forgotten about in the rush to lionize the LA3.
Here is (one peice) of evidence, out of many:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2010/9/24/thank-you-wi-datcp-for-giving-me-the-opportunity-to-create-a.html
If you had been following the conversation here for the past 6 months, you would be well aware of the hostillity of many of the regular commentors to any kind of voluntary, scale-appropriate, and conditions-based food safety effort.
I would challenge you (or anyone) to find a single instance of me or any other advocate for a food safety effort advocating that our agenda be imposed with force.
Again, please see the above link, and the hostile dialogue that follows.
You seem to have a penchant for blaming others for your obvious deficiencies. And if there are more with your attitude involved with the Institute, then indeed the effort will be totally successful….in DIVIDING the raw milk community.
Certifying farms can be a positive thing….but the rhetoric that we've heard from both you and Mark cause significant doubt that it will be managed in a way the 'unifies' raw milk producers in the country. You can sit here and say 'we've all got to stick together'…but if your actions don't reflect that then trust and credibility goes out the window. We shouldn't have to pay dues and follow Marks rules to be a part of the 'acceptable' raw milk community.
What I do not like is the absolute hostility to anyone who suggests we look more carefully at food safety, the conspiracy theories, the outbreak denialists, and the "no-regulation" ideologues. Theirs is a profoundly counter-productive dialogue which the movement needs to overcome. As the Rawsome case is surely bearing out, "laissez-faire" is a sure recipe for disaster.
Food safety is not merely a target, as in "it would be nice to produce safe food." As a producer or handler of food, food safety is an OBLIGATION. It requires a plan, documentation, verification, and on-going evaluation towards improvement.
Again — no one has a right to make someone else sick!
What I am concerned about is the righteous hostility of those who are paying money to have a nicely designed seal on their milk jug, towards those who decide to forego that mark. The chances of a piece of shit getting in the jug are similar for both…and the so called testing and verification have little to no chance of preventing this from happening. We KNOW that testing does everything for the farmer….monitors his production…and it is NO guarantee for the consumer. You and Mark portray it otherwise…and are creating a deception that will fracture the raw milk community.
I wonder what your contingency is when a Institute certified farm has an 'incident' (real or fabricated). Think that all the test results in the world are gonna matter when little johnny is in the hospital….. ? You're gonna test every batch, every day? And please don't be so foolish to think that ANY program will guarantee that no incident will EVER occur. You can't be that foolish….or can you?
And by the way this paragraph is patently false
"As usual, the ethically questionable producers are getting the spotlight and support while the ethically sound producers are being thrown under the bus <b>by the movement</b>. We saw this happen to Scott Trautman because he wanted food safety standards for raw milk production, and now we are seeing it happen to the California herdshares because they aren't just in it for a quick buck."
You seem to imply here that the movement is making a conscious effort to spotlight the bad and 'runover' the good….obvious deception if your goal is to bash the movement. Who threw Scott 'under the bus'? Because his efforts weren't embraced universally, and him treated like some savior he was 'thrown under the bus?"…bullshit. Who in the movement wanted rawesome to cast a shadow over the really worthy 'faces of food choice'….someone in the movement….? No…so I say bullshit again. Your argument is weak….and you lie to give it credence.
Not only do you excel at the blame game…you are quite adept at creating strawmen, just to bolster your Quixotesque ego. I think most of us here agree where you can shove your sword…..
Thank you, Bill, I hope you are well, too.
"I would challenge you (or anyone) to find a single instance of me or any other advocate for a food safety effort advocating that our agenda be imposed with force."
You and a few others have mentioned that RAWMI membership could have the benefit of reducing one's liability insurance rates. This would create an economic advantage for members and a disadvantage for non-members. This is FORCE.
John M. and others:
Please take the time to read the link to the Scott Trautman article that Bill posted above. It is quite an eye-opening read, well worth your time. In it you will find the side-stepping of direct questions from our so-called "raw milk advocates", childish name-calling by those same folks, and you will get a better idea of the utter contempt Trautman (and Bill) have for those who don't want to follow their program.
"Each box and chub bears the establishment number "Est. 262" within the USDA mark of inspection. "
The contamination was discovered by the Ohio dept of AG inspection AFTER the USDAs inspection. With incidences like this, how is anyone to have any confidence in any "inspections"? And the public was notified 2-3 days AFTER the last sell by date….. These contamination issues are in "foods" for people and animals.
Sterilizing is not the answer, that does nothing more than denature the food and make it worthless. Teaching consumers how the food is raised (environmental/feeds/fertilizers) and how it is processed is what would lead to change in the system. If you repeat yourself often enough, people will open their eyes. Short, and to the point facts. People do not recall long drawn out stories.
Teach people what those CAFOs do to the environment- contamination of the ground, the ground water the people drink, the air they breath and then teach what they do to the animals that the people consume (same as for the produce people consume-side effects of pesticides/herbicides/man made fertilizers) Pictures are worth a 1000 words. People remember pictures more so than words.
http://www.usrecallnews.com/section/recalled-food
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls/Open_Federal_Cases/index.asp
http://www.nationalgrocers.org/Food%20Recalls/2011%20Food%20Recalls.html
Bill Anderson speaks with a forked tongue.To the contrary, it is self regulation which Rawesome is all about. To say otherwise is ignorant or deceptive. And of course there is force behind standards, otherwise they're nothing more than suggestions. And while joining RAWMI is ostensibly voluntary it is quite clear they intend to carve out legislative blessing (or mandate).
It is no surprise Bill has a hard time rallying around Rawesome. But its not because of any accusations, Mark has accusations of fraud as well. Its because they, as in the MN case, are believers in liberty and freedom and not in government nanny-state regulation as he is. This has nothing to do with so-called ultra libertarian baggage but rather Bill's progressive/fascist ideology, an ideology at odds with the freedoms won us by our ancestors.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_e0205b82-6ca1-5c08-817f-aeb0ad21f3d7.html
I hate to break it to all of you, but there really are already 3 raw milks in America:
1) Raw milk intended for pasteurization
2) Raw milk sold through conventional outlets (Grocery Stores) and meant for mass consumption (This is OPDC).
3) Raw milk sold directly to the customer either though on-farm sales, herd shares or other direct-to-consumer sales.
I don't mean to pick bones here but the #3 listed above should not be subjected to the same standards and regulation as the other 2. Bill and Mark are great to push for RAWMI standards for LARGE and non-direct sales. For the "small guy", the same rules should not apply. It is the informed consumer who seeks out the farmers directly to get their raw milk (meat and vegetables, too!), and therefore in most cases is talking directly with those who he or she gets his or her food from — in many cases, these consumers are at the farm, seeing the conditions and interacting with those who toil to produce the foods.
Michael Pollan really put a good framework together for the three types of food we have access to in our country in his book, the Omnivore's Dilemma: 1) conventional/factory, 2) industrial organic, and 3) local/organic. I just see folks like Mark in category #2. When you are trying to feed the world, your scale and thus your standards are different, and that's perfectly OKAY! I'm not saying that safety is unimportant; rather, that regulation, standards, etc for large guys are not the same as for the smaller farmers.
Oh, go cry me a river, Bill. You've done your fair share of name calling, especially to me. When directed to you, you whine like a baby. Sorry, friend, but your brand of politics is fascist, if you don't like the label, that's not my or Pete's or anyone else's problem – it's yours. Maybe you should do a little more listening, and a little less talking?
"The most ironic part is that the people pointing the fingers couldn't tell you the first thing about milk microbiology."
And our resident armchair microbiology expert has no respect for the freedoms on which this country is supposed to stand. Ironic, isn't it?
I'll tell you a secret, Bill. It's not that we don't care about microbiology. We don't care about YOU. Many of us learned a great deal from Miguel when he talked microbiology. What we can't stand is your ego, your attitude, your whining and your elitism, tied up with ZERO practical farming experience.
I know you've BS'd your way through the subjects of history, economics, politics, law on this blog – I've caught your untruths/half-truths many times – and considering this, there's no way in hell I'd take anything you'd say about microbiology as "truth".
Feel better now?
We have a saying where I come from, "If you're going to run with the BIG DOGS, you have to piss in the tall grass".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-regulatory_organization
"A self-regulatory organization (SRO) is an organization that exercises some degree of regulatory authority over an industry or profession. The regulatory authority could be applied in addition to some form of government regulation, or it could fill the vacuum of an absence of government oversight and regulation."
The American Nurses Association and the American Medical Association come to mind. Two entities I would want nothing to do with..both bought and paid for by corp America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-policing
"Self-policing, a form of self-regulation, is the process whereby an organization is asked, or volunteers, to monitor its own adherence to legal, ethical, or safety standards, rather than have an outside, independent agency such as a governmental entity monitor and enforce those standards."
I wish I was eloquent with words as some are; If the public is taught what "basic standards" are (what the cow is fed, environment, general health, cleanliness of the milking machines/or the hands, cleanliness of the stanchion, etc and the equipment that contains the milk and storage, etc–this is it in a very basic nutshell) If the public knows what to look for they, in effect will not purchase from those who are not up to par, they will purchase from those who follow at least the basics of standards….healthy feed, healthy cow, healthy environment, healthy processing….
I think it was the history channel, last week was showing a dairy around Fresno, the way they milk and process the milk…. I saw the legs of the cows as they were standing in the, I believe a circular stanchion and they had shit on all four legs, all the cows did and they hooked up the milkers to these shit encrusted cows. The public was getting poop filled milk and the gov allows this.
Lola says it well…. Bill your bogus retreat and acquiescence just drives this point home even more. It's your infantile personality that creates much of the acrimony directed at you…but just like a little child you try and blame the other, create false reality to bolster your view, and whine when it doesn't go your way. Sad, with a little humility, and a little bit deeper understanding of the entire raw milk movement, you'd be a tremendous contributor to the discussion…but alas it seems the more you pour yourself onto these pages the more people dislike you.
Alice yes, raw milk can be divided the way you say…but then Marks efforts will create a 4th raw milk…one that has a fancy 'tested' label, paid for by membership dues on the side of the jug. I cna guarantee you the they won't limit their 'program' to mass raw milk producers…it limits the potential membership pool, reduces the financial benefit of the Institute…and makes that 'mecca' Mark wants to build harder to attain.
Just watch the branding propaganda that comes out when the Institute goes public. It'll be sickening.
Also, contrary to what she says, apparently Lola DOES care about me because she sees the need to incessantly attack me everytime this subject comes up. Why she cares so much about me, I do not know.
It is interesting to note that one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of raw milk safety standards was Scott Trautman. Trautman is small… he milks less than 30 cows and sells all of his farm products direct-to-consumer. He was also been one of the hardest hit by the DATCP raw milk crackdown in 2009-2010. He is nothing like the scale that OPDC is, yet Trautman has been consistant and principled in his calls for self-regulation of raw milk production from the start. Trautman is a true entrepreneur. He is innovative in both his approach to farming and his approach to this complex and controversial issue.
Finally, folks, let's please stop clogging up David's blog with this silly debate. If anyone wants to continue this conversation, feel free to email me directly: wicheesemaker@gmail.com
What I care about, Bill, is exposing you for the liar and fraud you are. You are a spokesperson for regulation, that is your endgame and you're not ashamed to admit it, and you don't even have the humility to listen to people who are doing the exact thing you advocate – selling clean raw milk – when they say they don't want your regulation. Your ego does not allow you to listen, because in your mind you are smarter than us. Well, Bill, I'm here to tell you you're not.
Let me tell you something about Scott Trautman. I don't care how well you know him, I don't care about how clean his facilities are, how healthy his cows are, how complex his HACCP plan is, if he doesn't improve his bedside manner he will never gain the respect of those I know in this movement. Reread his comments on your link above. I have concerns, and those concerns are valid, yet they are constantly downplayed and marginalize by you, by Mark, by Scott. I asked Scott some very real and very direct questions about the standards he proposed, and he didn't answer them. This commands respect? Lofty ideas with no real plan of action and no accountability to those whose businesses will come under his regulations? I call bullshit on that. Before I sign my farm over into yet another complex bureaucratic nightmare, I expect answers. Yet Scott refused to give them. I have no respect for that kind of slippery sidestepping.
You need to understand that there are people working behind the scenes that don't make a big deal of themselves and if you and your cronies would stop fancying yourselves as masters of the universe you may be able to utilize their knowledge, too. You are not privy to all, as I am not privy to all. But if you want to make friends and not enemies in this movement, you need to shut your mouth, gain some experience and a lot of humility. Then and only then you will be a force to be reckoned with.
Here is a question I was thinking of earlier today to ask you as I was sanding and finishing a floor.
Say you were in a state where real milk was currently illegal, except by herd/cow shares and leases. You are offered the opportunity to make real milk completely legal, even for retail sales in stores, but only for RAWMI raw milk farms or state milk board inspection/standards and farms who play by their game (and we know their game and its end result… no raw milk).
All others, including existing herdshare/leases would be banned under this law.
Would you accept this deal and support this deal and work to make this kind of deal happen?
No one is forcing you to participate in the raw milk safety efforts underway, and you are more than free to undertake your own efforts if you so wish.
If you want to discuss things further with me, I'd be happy to address your concerns, and to listen to your experiences in raw milk production. Please email me directly.
There is an easy way for YOU to stop this from cluttering up Davids Blog….1.stop responding and 2. don't EVER mention lola by name in any of your posts. It really is simple….if you can bring yourself to not have the last word…..
I suggest you stick to microbes…it's pretty obvious your people skills are weak at best.
If you go to page 2 of the comments section of David's last article, "Could a Trial of the Rawsome Three…" you will see that after months of absenteeism, I made a comment to RawMilk Advocate. The next comment was by Bill, attacking me.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2011/8/11/could-a-trial-of-the-rawesome-three-trump-that-of-the-chicag.html?currentPage=2#comments
Both are knowledgeable.
We best know the difference.
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Don't you ever get tired of making a horse's ass out of yourself???
The contempt toward "little johnny" sends a shiver up my spine. The demonization of those who become ill from raw milk by some farmers and consumers in the raw milk movement is hard to comprehend. I would definitely want to stay away from any food produced by a farmer that makes a comment like that about foodborne illness and hospitalization.
Amanda Rose published an interesting new guide on the topic of finding a safe and ethical source of raw milk.
http://www.traditional-foods.com/sourcing/raw-milk/
MW
http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/behind-the-foodborne-illness-numbers-politics-vs-science/
Your attempt to discredit me is worthless….when you take into consideration the politics behind 'food safety'. Sure you work in lab…and you 'looking out for all those poor defenseless people'….but I'm here busted my butt everyday of the year providing high quality food topeople who NEED IT! If you could see the look on peoples faces….or hear the outpouring of gratitude from those who depend on me….you'd get your ass out of that lab and into the real world. Chemical sensitives, lupus, crohns, cancer patients….they always seem to find ME. I've never advertised a single shred in my life..and everything I do has been from personal reference. Quality is a magnet…for there are so many people who are desperate for good food.
The system you endorse…the dead food supply… is killing people…I suggest you get off your high horse and walk with the real folks.
Quite often that sick kid in the hospital is used as a pawn for the big monied interests to sway (deceive) public opinion….just look at Marlers use of 'little johnny'. And you got the gall to say that <b>I"M</b> untrustworthy. You can't be THAT stupid.
I recognize the context of your offensive statement, but still think there was an underlying belief in it, or you would have edited it out since you generally seem to choose your words carefully, and I generally learn from your comments and am rarely offended by them. In fact, this other comment you made was brilliant: "but the right to reject governmental 'protection', is harder to make…. when you're in a court fighting for the right to be duped……"
There is a lot that my lab work and others have to offer. And, as a public health worker, I'd be the first to criticize the current system – for reasons different from miguel and others who question that infectious diseases are a cause of human illness. For example, a major problem in the current public health system is the slowness of surveillance and outbreak detection. Despite all the high tech DNA fingerprinting, massive outbreaks like Cargill are detected weeks to months after the fact; sometimes only after hospitalizations and death(s) bring it to the attention of the system. It seems like there is great potential for a mostly short supply chain product like raw milk to self-regulate; there are plenty of examples where fancy DNA tests weren't even needed to know a short supply chain producer caused the problem (it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out when a herdshare is linked to an outbreak). I find it curious how much opposition exists against proposals to create scalable raw milk food safety standards. Perhaps the forest – common sense married to science – is lost for the trees – personalities.
MW
This is exactly my situation as well… a good portion of my customers were ill, and are now better. I don't particularly care whether my raw milk and other farm-raised foods actually cured them or acted as placebo.
The important thing is they feel better and healthier than they had for years eating government-approved foods… MW's approved government-approved foods.
And to me, THAT is just as important as money if not more so.
Questioning those in power is crucial for keeping a government and its people in equilibrium. People should question everything especially if it is against their own knowledge or beliefs. If you do not question, then how will you learn? Many causes of human illnesses are from environmental contamination and that includes what is consumed orally.
"For example, a major problem in the current public health system is the slowness of surveillance and outbreak detection. "
Just think, if they stop raising meat for consumption in the CAFOs, feed the animal a diet they were made to consume,raise the animals so they are healthy and don't require all the drugs pumped into them, change the way potential food is processed there most likely would be a hellofa lot less "outbreaks" Wasn't this CURRENT outbreak from cargill "discovered" AFTER the govt did their inspection, discovered by routine a sate lab inspection? AND cargill is NOT shut down…..
"curious how much opposition exists against proposals to create scalable raw milk food safety standards."
I don't recall everything that was written on this blog about proposed "safety standards", perhaps if the so called proposals were posted and and transparent others could make choices. Not everyone needs to belong to a controlling entity.
In the health care field there are written "standards of practice", people would be so shocked to find out that their care may be sub-standard…..
"common sense married to science "
ROTFLMAO It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that much of science is manipulated by huge conglomerates. Follow the money. Science should always be questioned.
Thanks for that note, Sylvia, and I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure, but it may also have been what Ingvar was alluding to.
I stand by everything I've said, and I still believe that the way forward for raw milk freedom is through science-based standards and microbiology, not through endless personal attacks and sectarianism which only tend to empower the authorities at the expense of good farmers and local consumers.
It is unfortunate there are some here who would rather tear down others, than build their own good system. Its becoming obvious that there is no point in trying to change their mind. Life will carry on with or without them. I'm sure they will find new outllets to spew their negative energy when this one has been exhausted.
Enough said.
Yes MW I do choose my words carefully….and sometimes like the fallible human I am choose the wrong one. I tried to revise that last sentence to read 'foolish'…but the revise comments wasn't working…. I know youre not stupid…just a little misguided.
MW…do you really know what it's like to have people…real people with real faces, lives and families…depending on you (I'm not talking about that nebulous 'general public' thing) I do every time I hand someone a jug.
Do you know what I think of when I clean a teat….or spray that vinegar solution in the milk hose.? My milk baby list is growing…a number of my customers are pregnant again, and the kids who first drank my milk in utero are getting ready to graduate elementary school….the twinkle in their eyes, and the vigor in their manner is special. Real food for real people.
This aint no party, this aint no disco….and it damn sure aint no foolin around!
Target your irrational fear, and your weak spine, elsewhere.
Testing will never disprove an illness.
I think your assesment of the scientific research is inaccurate.
There is a considerable body of science (some of it very old and some of it very cutting edge) that studies the interaction of different actors in a microbial community, and how various enviromental factors encourage or surpress the growth of different organisms. Much of this research does deal with the food-safety implications of these communities and enviroments.
I have posted here (numerous times) the array of studies which focus on the role that Enterococcus species have in supression of Listeria Monocytegenes and Staph. Aureus. In France, culture companies actually produce cheese cultures from non-pathogenic strains of these fecal bacteria, in order to enhace both the flavor and food safety of cheeses. (Unfortunately, FDA won't allow these cultures to be imported to the US, for obvious reasons…)
Just google "enterococcus" and "cheese" and all sorts of studies will come up showing how these organisms behave in the microbial eco-system of cheese.
Another very classic example is the role that lactococcus lactis plays in food safety, through the production of the peptide nisin which supresses growth of other undesirables, especially listeria. (Lactococcus lactis is the main starter culture for most cheeses, except for highly cooked varieties i.e. Swiss-Alpine-style or Hard-Italian-style where thermophillic rod-shaped strains are dominant)
As a cheese maker, I like to think of myself as a "bacteria farmer." Cheese is a microbial eco-system, no doubt. This doesn't change the need for food safety. I don't want listeria or staph or pseudomonas in my cheese!
Epoisse is a traditional lactic-curd schmear-ripened cow's milk cheese from Burgandy, France. As it ages, it is washed in a salt brine containing Marc de Bourgogne (a grape spirit distilled from the spent must of winemaking, similair to Italian Grappa), with the proportion of Marc increasing progressively as the cheese ripens.
As I explained above, cheese starter cultures tend to inhibit the growth of listeria that may be present in the raw milk, because of two factors — 1) the consumption of lactose, and the production of lactic acid which in this case drops the pH of the cheese to a very acidic pH 4.1, and 2) the peptide nisin produced by the primary starter bacteria lactococcus lactis. (It is worth pointing out that nisin's anti-listerial activity is inhibitted by certain proteolytic enzymes… this comes into play later on)
As the cheese ripens, several things happen. 1) The starter cultures begin to lyse (die off) releasing the package of enzymes contained within the cell. These enzymes break down nisin, eliminating its anti-listerial activity. 2) The growth of the ripening cultures (aerobic yeasts and bacterias) that consume the lactic acid, which causes the pH to rise back to neutral (pH 7) and even higher into slightly alkaline pH.
To add to this, the cheese cave is moist and cool (perfect conditions for listeria), and the cheese is being washed in a salty brine (listeria is incredibly "halo-tolerant", meaning it can grow under conditions of very high salt)
It would seem that all of these enviromental factors would favor the growth of listeria later in the ripening process… and indeed, listeria problems most often occur at this stage. However, there a few things working in our favor, and against listeria.
1) Enterococcus, and other competative flora. This is why it is actually safer to have a cheese made from a clean source of raw milk, than from pasteurized milk, because enviromental listeria (often carried in the salt brine) will have a more difficult time growing in a more bio-diverse environment.
and
2) The Marc de Bourgogne.
Yes, that's right. The booze keeps the listeria away! That's why the proportion of Marc in the salt brine increases as the cheese ripens, because the risk of listeria also becomes higher. (It's also for flavor, and for slowing down the ripening…)
And to top it all off, the cheese is traditionally enjoyed with a glass of wine.
See this research on alcohol consumption and listeria:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2001.tb02236.x/abstract
There you have it folks. The ecology of listeria in Epoisse. I would still emphasize, though, that good hygiene and sanitation is of the utmost importance, to minimize any listeria which may be present. This all starts on the farm, and carries through to the creamery, the cheese cave, and to the consumer.
You determine this by testing. Laboratory services are a very important part of any dairy production system, raw or pasteurized.
I do not share your view of healthy food. Pathogens are not a neccessary or even desirable part of healthy food. Though you and I may be immune to low levels of most pathogens (I have eat trial batches of cheese that were known to be contaminated with listeria, and never gotten sick), not all people share our robust immune system. There are vulnerable groups (infants, cancer patients, pregnant women, the elderly, etc…) who also deserve consideration, and the right to obtain nutrient-dense food without having to worry about dying from foodborne illness.
Even in healthy raw milk, low levels of certain pathogens can grow if given the right conditions — temperature, pH, oxygen, salt, etc… (or lack of, depending on the organism).
As we know, Mexican-style soft raw milk cheeses (so-called "bathtub cheese") are notorious for causing listeria outbreaks, while fluid raw drinking milk is almost never associated with listeria infections. This seems counter-intuitive, because as I've explained active cheese culture are very effective at inhibiting listeria growth.
The reason is because these styles of cheese are unacidified — there is no starter culture added. This is because traditional Mexican cheeses are used in cooking applications with other ingredients (vegetables, meat, etc… on a tortilla or leaf) and are not supposed to melt, so they must have a high pH (and consequently a high calcium-phosophate content, preventing the casein from flowing when the cheese is placed on a hot griddle).
These Mexican cheeses are also very high in salt, which is designed to supress the natural lactic cultures, in order to maintain the high pH. Listeria is very halo-tolerant (salt-tolerant). To top it all off, they are refrigerated immediately after production, again as a means to control the native lactic cultures, (listeria is also very cold-tolerant aka psychrotrophic).
These are perfect conditions for listeria to grow to very dangerous concentrations.
However, you'd think that the listeria would be killed when the cheese is cooked, except that listeria is motile and can swim to the center of the cheese where the heat may not reach a kill temperature.
The result is the listeria infections that CDC trys clumping with the statistics for raw milk.
I know I have been focusing very much on listeria here, but I would be more than happy to talk about the growth conditions and how to control other organisms (like Staph. Aureus. or E. Coli) without the use of pasteurization.
Atlantic–
The Latest Raw Milk Raid: An Attack on Food Freedom?
http://www.theatlantic.com:80/life/archive/2011/08/the-latest-raw-milk-raid-an-attack-on-food-freedom/243635/
The issue::::
"While the Cargills of the world get to help decide the rules, tax dollars are being used to do away with freedom of choice. This is the state of food freedom in America today: It's being sacrificed in the name of food safety."
The article mentions the comparisons David has made to the Chicago Seven and also the Shell Game.
It may have been lost in the flurry of posts – did you see my earlier question for you?
Look forward to your answer.
Bill…I didn't think you could either…
That you stand behind your statements is predictable too….you obviously have never done anything wrong in your life. :rolleyes:
One thing I'd like to point out is the constant harping about "if you don't like our safety program you're welcome to start your own" This 'logic' is based on a faulty premise…. and is being used to justify misguided action, and discredit opponents. Many here don't feel there is a problem with raw milk production in the US. Yes there have been incidences…but if you remove the ones artificially created by the authorities, the rate of problems is even more minute. The presence of a national standard, any standard, will change the landscape for all of us….more than one standard will complicate it even more. Also when said standard is used to marginalize those who choose not to pay money, it detracts from the movement as a whole, and hurts good people.
Raw milk, and the community that produces it, is solid enough to stand on its' own, and does not need to pay the price that will be required for mainstreaming it through 'standards
Also…the notion that 'science will protect' us is also a fallacy. what really affords the best protect is confidence in the person…not the 'rules' they follow. Anytime there are new rules instituted…people work to find ways around them…and it will be no different with the new Institute standards…the type of person who would be excited about the new seal….one that instantly gives them more credibility…is the same type of person who would be willing to leave some cows out of the milking line on the day that milk is drawn for testing. That any new standard is a panacea is wrong…it will just create different problems.
MW…I figured when I wrote what you quoted it would eventually be 'used' by folks like you to ridicule the food rights view. But it is the truth…and the truth will set all of us free (and believe me those that agree with you, and are trying to prevent raw milk sales, know nothing about truth). The problem with rawesome is not that Sharon was dishonest…the problem is that when the accusations came out, instead of investigating and being sure the charges were false, they instead chose to 'shoot the messenger'. That the citizens of this country won't have the opportunity to reject the USDA/FDA 'protection", is a death sentence for all who recognize the fallacy they put forth. People have the right to choose who they put their trust in…. and we know for certain the 'authorities', from both their words and actions, cannot be trusted.
I had a very nice reply written to you yesterday, but it was lost because of the comment posting issue that milk farmer is also having.
I don't think it is fair to pit grocery-level sales against herd-shares. My view is basically that the farmers and consumers in any given state should decide for themsleves how they want to go about raw milk sales. I would be more than happy to help with insights on food safety and scientific issues, but I am not going to work for or against a particular "deal" that some insider cuts. Hopefully the people in the hypothetical state can transparently work out a system which maximizes consumer access to raw milk while minimizing the likelihood of an outbreak.
As a side note, I should point out that the biggest issue with retail-level sales is not legality, but liability. The insurance companies will nix retail sales before any state does. OPDC has learned this lesson the hard way, through their experience with Whole Foods. Of course, having a 3rd-party food safety accreditation can't hurt if you are trying to get raw milk into grocery stores. But as I said, I don't think it is fair to pit grocery sales against herd-shares, when they should be co-operating for the common cause of increasing raw milk availability and food safety.
MF-
There is a food safety problem with raw milk in this country, and we need to stop denying it. Granted, 2011 has been a pretty quiet year on the outbreaks, but 2009 and 2010 saw a glut of raw milk related outbreaks. I'm not going to play the role of Bill Marler here, but I think we've seen enough from his ilk to remind us that food safety is an ongoing responsibillity. Outbreaks are every raw milk producer's problem, and they often result in backlash against producers who had no role in the outbreak.
And for the record, I do not believe that simply knowing your farmer is enough to ensure food safety. It is unrealistic to expect the average consumer to understand the finer points of milk microbiology and sanitation. And as Miguel is very fond of pointing out — you can't inspect the inside of a milk pipeline.
However, I do think that publishing bacteria counts and lab results for the average consumer to see will help increase consumer awareness and confidence, and improve the consumer's understanding of his/her farmer. Even on simply a public relations level, it will benefit the raw milk movement to have an extra level of food safety protection, to increase the number of consumers who are interested in obtaining raw milk.
Miguel-
No, I do not think that is an accurate statement. As you can see from my postings above, my focus is very much on the biological context in which the pathogen occurs, and what specific enviromental and competative factors enable it to flourish and which factors tend to cause it to perish.
I spoke about the mechanisms by which lactic cultures and other organisms (such as enterococcus) use to supress the growth of listeria. I spoke about the enviromental conditions which allow for listeria to grow — neutral pH, high salt (which supresses competition), moisture, cold, extra-cellar proteolytic enzymes (which break down nisin), and lack of oxygen (…something I forgot to mention above)
And finally, I discussed the role that the social culinary context plays in the food safety of both of those cheeses — in the case of Epoisse, drinking wine while eating the cheese, and in the case of the Queso Blanco (unacidified Mexican cheese), the way it is grilled and served with other fried meats and vegetables in a tortilla or leaf.
It seems to me that my explanation of the food safety issue surrounding both of those cheeses is a very wholistic approach that focuses on both the biological context and the culinary tradition. Perhaps you disagree. If so, I'm curious to understand why.
Giving the average person numbers doesn't always increase awareness. For many, it confuses them, for some it increases their anxiety, for others they simply don't care, the MDs will take care of them….. I've reviewed lab results with numerous patients. Instructed on the "normal" parameters and what deviation could mean pertaining to the Diagnoses the MD gave them. For example: Increased white counts could mean numerous things, and any medication the patient takes can affect it also;
http://labtestsonline.org/understanding/analytes/wbc/tab/test
Each time you post your cell plate counts, I hope it is broken down to explain what all the cell counts mean along with the effects of those counts, perhaps comparing the counts with the counts of the CAFOs and what they mean, would be a nice comparison for the public?
"average consumer to understand the finer points of milk microbiology and sanitation"
I zipped through micro many years ago, an easy A for me. Just reading all the different posts on this blog alone, regarding plate counts,etc, and morphology of various cells has my head spinning. I can only imagine how someone who never had micro would understand the majority of what was written.
I feel I have a good knowledge of sanitation, cleanliness and sterilization. Would the average person? Many still don't wash their hands after using the toilet.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117956&page=1
Unless there is poop on everything, including the cows and dirt layered on equipment, would they really know what basic sanitation is?
Teaching the public is not an easy task.
You raise an interesting question that requested a yes or no response (Did you get it???) During furor following the Hebron Seizure in 2006 here in Michigan, there was a great deal of discussion among small dairy folks regarding what small dairies envisioned for the future—similar in part to this retail versus herd-share currently being batted around on this blog. Initially, Id say that a large percentage of small producers were favoring more specific statutory language for retail sale and distribution assuming such would enhance broad availability of unprocessed dairy products. The tone and enthusiasm diminished when the point was raised very similar to your question-as to what impact that would that have on herd-share and private contract agreements Not necessarily in an initial round of legislative actionbut in subsequent amendments etc. to the passage of a statute. What if there had to be a choice-the one you raised? Just my observation- small producers backed away from blanket support for broader commercial retail sale and distribution-and would answer No to your hypothetical. They changed my mind and challenged me to think about these issues from multiple perspectivesthe same thing is happening in the recent postingsthese are important discussions.
It is indeed important to have a reference point, for consumers to understand what the numbers mean. The bacteria plate count standard for Grade A raw milk for pasteurization is 100,000/mL at the farm, and 300,000/mL at the creamery tank. Compare that to raw milk for raw consumption, which should never exceed 15,000/mL, and should typically be below 5,000/mL.
Coliform is another useful indicator. In California, the Coliform standard for Grade A raw milk for pasteurization is 700/mL, and in the rest of the U.S. there is no standard (meaning coliform could be much, much higher). Raw millk for raw consumption should never exceed 50 coliform per mL, and should typically be below 10/mL. Good producers with a small milk pipeline can consistantlly get less than 1 per mL.
Here's a little insight into how our elected officials feel about consumer choice and the ability to obtain raw milk. A woman who is a member of VICFA (Virginia Independent Consumers and Farmers Association) is toying with running for office because she know our current officials are out of touch with what we consumers want and are not considering the effect that current legislation has on our small farmers. Another NAIS knock-off just passed our Assembly and now all ag animals entering VA have to be labeled. Despite vehement opposition to this by VICFA and other small farmers because of the burdensome nature of the regulation, the Assembly passed it and Matt Lohr, Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) dismissed the concern citing bio-terrorism and other bureaucratic drivel. Below I have copied what she reported, with her permission:
<begin quote> At the Rockingham Co Fair, elected official day I spoke with Matt Lohr about the rules out of the VA Ag people. And raw milk as well. He pretty quickly told me that "our mind is made up, and that the rules on transport and AIS have to do with agri-terror and nat. security, and raw milk is forbidden because it makes people sick and they have to be protected. He is a statist. I mentioned the inability of government agencies to protect anyone (mentioned FDA, USDA inspection process), nothing. I said that all these rules that didn't make sense create lawbreakers out of both consumers and producers, and encourages a disrespect for government. I asked what would make them change their mind — 1) elimination of their enforcement budget, 2) any new information or arguments? 3) freedom of choice for consumers and producers? Basically, he indicated to me nothing you can tell them will work — only eliminating their budget and legal authority over the rest of us.
This is the first time I've actually talked about this with any government rep above a county agent level. So its old news to VICFA. My gut reaction is that you can elect people who will try and change the law, or you can defund them (through electoral and other methods, country going broke is what I mentioned to Matt), and you can openly and less openly disobey them, and of course, we have to laugh at them. There is a huge business in "Homeland Security" and it is seen by the USDA and State Ag bodies as a potential cash cow. <end quote>
So, there you have it from the horse's ass, I mean mouth. They feel we need to be protected — and Lohr was appointed by a Republican. This problem of food choice goes beyond party — it is a clear disregard for freedom of choice. Looks like there will have to be a lot of civil disobedience because our elected officials just don't get it, and despite the willingness of some of us to fight, the big machine doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon.
Sorry to say, but your post shows they (officials and elected folk) really " do get it." While this is not a matter of political party, as I stated elsewhere, this is all about basic political philosophy and more foundational views – how you view people, gov't, etc.
This is really the end game of a long battle between different idea systems, especially the practical end game of evolution at work in government (gov't officials are the most "evolved," and this get to dictate to everyone else). tis survival of the fittest and a few other ideas rolled into the governmental behemoth, to the destruction of all…
Thankfully, they may all be bankrupt soon due to their foolishness and we can get back to building and living in a working world and society again…
Since I haven't "seen" what the proposed "standards" are, I would have to agree with this.
Are you referring to basic sanitary standards? If so, sharing the knowledge of basic sanitation should be free and choosing to pay for a certification sticker is optional.
When I was in Ca, I got milk from a cow share. They didn't need a certification to reassure their owners the milk was safe. If I belong to a cow share, why would I need my milk to be certified? Selling on the large scale like OP and Claravale then testing would be prudent.
It appears that the "standards" would be no different than the term "organic" , which is open to interpretation. Do I take the word of the farmer or the word of the govt? Not a hard choice.
"Also when said standard is used to marginalize those who choose not to pay money, it detracts from the movement as a whole, and hurts good people. "
Indeed it does.
"NAIS knock-off just passed our Assembly and now all ag animals entering VA have to be labeled. "
Soon they may start penalizing you for the field mice on your property. Soon I will be looking for a little jersey.
I bred my Jersey to a Dexter last fall and can't wait until her Jersey-Dex heifer is old enough to have her own calf in two years. That's one good thing about goats… the breeding cycle is much faster!
It is big.
It is impressive.
Its a big, impressive house of cards.
Keep pushing.
If you wish to be insulated from failure you will be equally insulated from success. Whatever the rationale for the ever increasing statutory control of one group over another, it is, in fact, intolerable. The available tools of communication, transportation, and other studies and technologies make such statutory control obsolete when coupled with the basic principles of American government and jurisprudence.
Exhibit A is a simple blog to be found at http://www.thecompletepatient.com .
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Your friend needs to run for office . . . . let us know who she is so we can contribute to her campaign.
NAIS is not dead and is rearing its ugly head again . . . . we thought it was finished two years ago . . . . think again.
The USDA and FDA swat teams need to be defunded ASAP . . . . those that wish to harass small farms should be put on the unemployment line like 20% of us are already . . . .
Any NAIS directive needs to be defunded yesterday . . .. the government does not listen to us . . . . case in point what is going on in Virginia right now (I used to live there over 5 years ago and could not source raw milk for my family).
We need to look at the next two election cycles . . .we need to kick out all of those that voted for S-510 or have proposed any further regulations on small family farms.
Take a look at the Agricultural stance of our challenger (Scott D'Amboise) against Olympia Snowe:
Scott D'Amboise on Agricultural Issues
"If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." – Thomas Jefferson
OVERVIEW
I believe that economic and personal liberties are indivisible. Nowhere are these liberties better exemplified and expressed than in the ability of the American farmer to conduct business with the American consumer.
Therefore, one of the cornerstones of my campaign will be to defend and protect the liberties of the American farmer (especially the small, local farmer) as well as the American consumer who chooses to buy their products.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE & CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
I believe the Declaration of Independence declares the God given liberties of all American farmers to raise, produce and sell their products and the American consumer to purchase such products.
I believe the Constitution of the United States protects the God given liberties of all American farmers to raise, produce and sell their products and the American consumer to purchase such products.
I will therefore fight to protect these liberties of the American farmer. The Federal government has no inherent power to intervene in the private transaction between the American small farmer and their customers.
RAW MILK, ANIMAL ID, THE LOCAL FOOD MOVEMENT, AND OTHER ISSUES
I will support and defend the liberties of all American dairy farmers to produce and sell raw milk. They should be able to do so without fear of prosecution.
I will oppose all attempts by the Federal Government to:
Implement any type of National Animal ID and/or Farm Premise ID program
Force farmers to obtain a commercial driver's license in order to drive their tractors
Such programs are not only unconstitutional, but written to protect the interests of large agricultural interests while imposing an undue burden which ultimately punishes the small farmer.
I will support and defend the liberties of the Americans who have promoted and adopted the local food ordinance – most recently exhibited by some of our fellow Mainers in Hancock County.
I will actively work to reduce the size of the FDA and USDA.
Ultimately, I believe food is safer, tastes better and is more nutritious when grown and sold locally.
Lastly, I believe it is our duty as American citizens to protect the American farmer from an agenda that threatens their very livelihood. No liberty is more basic than the ability of free men and women to support their local farmer."
We need to vote for all candidates who have this stance on Agriculture around the country.
Only then will we be able to change the dynamics with regard to food choice and push forward the local food movement.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26017
It is about:
President Obama's Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent appointment of Susan Vaughn Grooters to the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF).