Many dairies that would love to sell raw milk have opted instead for the attractive income, and seeming security, of producing raw milk cheeses instead. They figure they can still get the equivalent of $10 to or more a gallon of milk by producing artisinal cheese, and avoid the hassles with regulators so long as they age it 60 days as required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. I’m an irregular buyer of a number of these cheeses made from raw cow’s, goat’s, and sheep’s milk, and they’re wonderful.
But enforcement of laws and regulations affecting raw milk are made to be changed, especially if it seems that farmers are carving out an attractive market niche and, horror of horrors, actually making farming profitable. Presumably the raw dairy cops at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have been waiting for an illness outbreak among consumers of 60-day-plus aged raw milk cheeses, but with none occurring, they’re moving ahead to protect us regardless.
According to a report in an industry publication, Cheese Reporter, a top dairy official at the FDA, Stephen Sundlof, director of its Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) believes that the 60-day aging period “is not effective in reducing pathogens in raw milk cheeses.” There needs to be “some other risk management steps” that could be applied. Sundlof said at a dairy conference last month. What makes him think that the 60-day period isn’t effective in reducing pathogens? A little birdie must have told him so.
A change in the aging period regulation could put a crimp on production of a number of raw milk soft cheeses like brie and camembert, among others. Some producers already struggle with the 60-day aging requirement, since certain cheeses are best sold sooner than that, and letting them age for 60 days simply reduces their viable shelf lives.
Moreover, the FDA isn’t proposing to extend the aging period, but rather to require processing of the milk, including pasteurization of milk for certain cheeses. Interestingly, another processing option mentioned is “probiotics or competitive exclusion products.” That’s curious, since I understood the FDA didn’t recognize “competitive exclusion” as a means of ensuring raw milk safety. But pasteurization would no doubt compromise the taste and texture, and perhaps the nutritional value, of a number of soft cheeses…and zap another raw nutrient-dense food.
The phenomenon of regulators arbitrarily making trouble for raw milk producers in the absence of illnesses is becoming ever more common. In the Cheese Reporter article, Sundlof is quoted as expressing concerns about the “continued and escalating interest in raw milk consumption.” I love his use of the word “escalating” rather than “growing” or “expanding.” Escalating is a fear-oriented word, as in escalating danger. I don’t ordinarily think of these guys are literary, but clearly Sundlof picks his vocabulary carefully (including when he talks about farmers becoming “pretty clever” in using cow share arrangements).
FDA continues to set the tone, indeed, lead the way, in continuing to “investigate” raw dairies, and encourage state agriculture and public health officials to do the same. The National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA) reports on a Pennsylvania Amish farmer who last week greeted two FDA agents investigating his dairy production. As I reported in my Grist.org article, other states have taken up the FDA’s initiative.
***
Okay, the discussion about the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund was a little rough-and-tumble, but maybe that’s because it’s a discussion that’s been long overdue.
I’ve alluded to farmer criticisms of FTCLDF in a few previous posts. In Wisconsin, the criticisms have bubbled more broadly, and become louder than in any other state.
I appreciate lola granola’s sense of frustration with trying to run a dairy in the midst of the upheaval created by Wisconsin’s regulators. My sense is that the criticisms of FTCLDF grow partly out of unrealistic expectations. When FTCLDF was established in 2007, it conveyed a sense that it would defend all members under fire from government regulators. I just reviewed its member benefits, and it says it provides “potential legal representation to defend distribution of raw milk and other farm products directly to the consumer.” In other words, it will provide legal advice to all members, but will in the final analysis decide which cases it wants to defend, and how it will defend them.
The criticisms also grow out of the fact that FTCLDF is a young and maturing organization. The very concept of an organization dedicated to defending raw dairies and other small farms distributing direct to consumers is a new one. It obviously needs time to gain the necessary experience to feel out the legal system, and determine what kind of load it can handle…and can afford to handle.
I also want to second what several readers have suggested about Pete Kennedy and other lawyers involved with FTCLDF. I’ve come to know Pete very well in the course of reporting on raw milk, and he is about as committed as anyone can be. He’s available to farmers evenings and weekends, and travels to many less-than-glamorous conferences and events—often with his young family in tow—to rally support and inform farmers and consumers alike about what’s happening on the legal front lines. I don’t sense any pocket lining going on—quite the opposite.
I’d also like to second what Bob Hayles, Steve Bemis, Alexis Bogue, and others say about the importance of contacting legislators concerning new legislation and enforcement of existing regulations affecting raw milk and other foods. If there’s nothing going on in your state, contact your Congressional representatives in Washington about opposing the pending federal food safety legislation (which could come up for a vote in the Senate any time in the next few weeks), which will give the FDA vast new powers to limit our food choices beyond the considerable power the agency already has, and applies ruthlessly.
No action is too small. In Framingham, MA, which has been the center of a debate about whether to license a dairy near Boston to sell raw milk, citizens have taken to circulating a petition urging local public health officials to stop stalling and let Doug Stephan sell milk. Politicians and regulators alike notice citizen involvement and opinion.
That’s not a word for instilling fear, it is a reflection of the fear they have and that their real concern is loosing control and not food safety at all.
Whats the point of a legal ‘defense’ fund that won’t commit to defending you if following their advice gets you in hot water? Well, David you left out this part: "Consistent with Internal Revenue Service regulations, we cannot guarantee representation in every case." But that doesn’t make me feel any better about it.
In regards to the FTCLDF, as a small organization it would seem obvious to me that it just doesn’t have the resources to defend everyone. Isn’t that the point of a concerted effort on the part of the various regulatory agencies. Like David has said, the government (State or Fed) has almost unlimited resources to go after many people in spread out locations. They also know that our defenses (as in the FTCLDF) are small and limited (even if they are smart and effective). I think they use every angle they can to their advantage.
One thing that I also thought of when reading all of the comments of late is that just because a "law" or "regulation" may say something and may have a commonly held interpretation does not mean that is how the authorities will interpret the rule and in consequence enforce it.
For example, I have read in many places that no where does the law state that US citizens need to pay income taxes, yet when it comes down to it, the fact that I could have everything I care about taken away and face jail time means that I pay my taxes. It may not say in the rule books, that they can require us to pay taxes, but they have the ability to make us pay taxes so the vast majority of us do.
That may be a bad example, but I think it applies to the interpretation of the word "incidental." Incidental may mean one thing to lola which is irrelevant if the regulatory agency interprets the issue in another way. I think the whole reason why she was counseled to operate under another set of conditions was to sidestep any legal haggling regarding the definition of the word.
thus, we pick our battles carefully.
That won’t happen and I’ll tell you why. When we were in the process of setting up our farmshare, we went to a local town lawyer for a second opinion. He took one look at what we wanted to do and said, I won’t touch this with a ten foot pole. So, if my head is on the chopping block next, and FTCLDF decides not to take my case, what am I supposed to do?
In regards to the word "incidental"…in a legal context, the meaning of words is very important (in regards to NAIS, "property" vs. "premises" for example). As I understand it, if a word is not defined in the statutes, then the common definition applies. DATCP does not have the authority to "interpret" the word as the common definition already applies to it, and, law is supposed to be written clearly so anyone reading it knows whether or not one is breaking the law. If anyone has any reasoning based in law (not opinion) to refute this, please do.
Gary, I do understand that funding is limited and must be used wisely. However, we do realize that the states read blogs such as these and know that if they go after 50 farmers in 8 states (coordinated by our friends at the FDA, undoubtedly), and FTCLDF can only represent 15 of those farmers, they have almost guaranteed wins in the other 35 cases. If FTCLDF decides to take the cases that seem most "winable", in order to set precedent and to gain membership and funding, where does that leave the losers?
Lola
One wonders though, are the courts the only play in our book? Did Gandhi or MLKJ win freedom through the courts? They both successfully stood down the most powerful nations of their time, and won.
Well, except they paid for it with their lives. Something to think about in a day and age when our government is openly admitting to assassinating American citizens. I don’t point that out to discourage, just to inform of the evil we face. But many more may die if we don’t win these battles.
I saw a video of Vandana Shiva on a panel discussion recently. She mentioned that these food safety rules (e.g. our Federal Food Code, not it literally but similar food facility regs) are being pushed around the world and in India they are fighting back by not complying:
http://fora.tv/2008/08/29/Slow_Food_Nation_The_World_Food_Crisis#fullprogram
min 58
This recent change in strategy with NAIS, did it come about because FTLDF filed a suit in federal court, or because ranchers in Colorado threatened to hang the bastards? I think the latter.
We’re not the only ones with funding limitations. Remember, the states are bordering on insolvency. They can come after us one at a time in the courts, but they can’t arrest us all and clog up the courts.
Back in 2000 I was selling milk to a processor(Foremost Farms) at below the cost of production.The state had a Milk Income Loss program that eased the pain slightly.Needless to say the stress and pressure on me and my family was intense.I tried to find a small scale cheesemaker that would buy high quality milk.I knew I was being robbed openly by the processor.In fact if you look at where the money comes from that is used to influence government policy you will trace it directly back to your own pocketbook.The processor is turning your own energy against you.You are funding the war against small dairy farms with your own labor.I decided to stop shipping milk,sell a bunch of cows, and take some time learning to make cheese and butter on a small scale with a handful of cows.When I stopped shipping milk ,I stopped contributing to my problems and started to take positive steps.The FTCLDF gets only a fraction of support from you that you give to the processor.As long as this continues,you can’t hope for positive results on the legal front.People looking for quality dairy products are your real friends,not the processors.Find a way to stop giving your energy to the processors.You will be in for lots of trouble and pain but you will pull through.Put your energy into making the world the way you want it to be.
Your words are sage advice to those dairymen that continue to struggle and fund their own slavery.
By the way….grass roots fund raising just took a novel and genuis evolution. See http://www.organicpastures.com and see how Malibu Compost ( a loosly related PETA cow rescue group in LA ) and OPDC joined foreces and saved cows and CA raw butter at the same time. It is the first sustainable organic cow rescue project ever done. Cows are saved from slaughter, people get their money back plus interest, Californians get their long undersupplied and long awaited raw butter back on the shelves.
A quadruple green bottom line.
One more thing…Sheehan is a graduate of San Joaquin School of Law. Maybe that is why he feels so strongly about OPDC and raw milk in Fresno.
Mark
FTCLDF was fashioned after the Home School Legal Defense Fund. It took them 10-12 years to change the legislative and political climate about Home Schooling, but they did it. They took on cases that they thought they could win, and meanwhile they sent letters of protest, challenged regulatory policy, gave encouragement to individual families, and were a voice for freedom of choice. It was the same idea as the raw milk movement – a bunch of people who believe in freedom contribute to political change. We can do this. But not without FTCLDF.
A lawyer has knowledge and resultant power that motivates"those guys" to think, and change. That’s why you send a check. It doesn’t always work, but it is an enormous help. It plants seeds. We need their courage and expertise..
Now, state governments and county libraries have loads of resources available to home schoolers. Google "home school curricula". It’s amazing! Now, they have freedom to choose how to educate their children, and the gov’t is helping them.
That’s what a government should do. That’s democracy at work. Most lawyers charge a minimum of $250/hour – and up to $1000/hour – do you think Pete and Gary deserve as much for preserving our freedoms? I do. I doubt they get $50/hour.
Cheap shot Lola, publishing Pete’s home address – shame on you. Doesn’t look that luxurious to me. Publish YOUR address. Tell us what YOU are doing to help?
I could list all the times Pete has helped Colorado (I saved the emails and took notes during the phone calls). Cost for helping 50 dairies? $125/year. Suffice it to say he has inspired confidence, he has educated, guided, and provided legal contracts to an "escalating" local market – improving the economy, providing jobs, and helping people get healthy. He has spent hours on the phone with us. His dedication, idealism and eternal fire is a big part of what makes me keep the light on in Colorado.
I totally endorse FTCLDF and I am dismayed that you don’t "get it".
-Blair
http://www.theppj.info/archives/314
Conflicts of Interest Reovoking the Corporate Charters of State Agencies
by Marti Oakley
FDA’s timing on threating raw milk cheese is good for the raw milk bills here in WI. Hopefully this will motivate the artisan cheese producers here to support our cause and make them realize their business model is at risk from regulators as well.
Who has details….when is it and where is the hearing and what are the details.
Please let me know….email me at http://www.mark@organicpastures.com
Mark