Greg Niewendorp (left) with Joel Salatin at a VICFA event in 2007.Michigan may be in the process of establishing a new regulatory standard for states that currently outlaw raw milk sales.

That’s the word I get from Greg Niewendorp, the Michigan cattle farmer who stood up in a show of civil disobedience when the Michigan Department of Agriculture insisted on testing his cattle for bovine tuberculosis, and tagging them as a first test of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). He’s reviewed new guidelines being proposed to cover the cooperative Michigan effort. (For details on his struggle, which occupied this blog during much of 2007, search under “Niewendorp”.)

Greg remains active in the National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association (NICFA) and other organizations.

Michigan, you may remember, is a kind of “pioneer” for anti-raw-milk initiatives in the U.S. It was the first state, in 1947, to require pasteurization—a trend that spread to about half the states, as a way to halt sales of raw milk. Consumers in most of those states obtain their milk via farmers who have established herdshares, or from neighboring states, where raw milk can be legally sold, either directly from the farm or in retail outlets.

Then, in 2006, Michigan became one of the launching pads for a widespread government assault on raw milk producers when it carried out a “sting” operation against farmer Richard Hebron, confiscating thousands of dollars of his raw dairy products and carrying out a search of his home and an Ann Arbor retailer. After six months of investigation by a local prosecutor, during which time it was discovered that the sting was prompted by a family likely sickened by pasteurized milk, Michigan authorities let Richard off with a $1,000 administrative fine.

Out of the Richard Hebron affair, two related dairy organizations emerged, the Michigan Fresh Milk Council to support newly sanctioned herdshares, and an organization comprised of farmers, consumers, and MDA officials called the Michigan Fresh Unprocessed Whole Milk Workgroup to explore more cooperative approaches to making raw milk available to the state’s consumers.

Now, according to Greg, the Michigan Fresh Milk Council is focusing on establishing rules for inspection and testing of all raw milk made available in the state, in cooperation with the MDA, and presumably the workgroup.

At first glance, this would seem to be a way to gain official sanctioning and expansion of raw milk distribution in a state that prohibits its sale (though now permits herdshares, as a result of the Richard Hebron affair). Conceivably, it could be a model for other states with similar prohibitions on raw milk sales. (I wrote about this workgroup last fall.)

But to those like Greg, who oppose state involvement, the approach is a threat. He sees MDA involvement as having the effect of creating regulatory barriers—for example, limitations on the kinds of dairy products that might be available, like butter and yogurt—such as exist in New York and Pennsylvania. “If you want to sell a gallon of milk to your neighbor, you will be violating the law,” he points out, if the milk hasn’t been inspected and/or tested according to state-approved guidelines.

Plus, he says, the guidelines allow testing of dairy cows by MDA for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis, which to Greg, affirms NAIS. He argues that effective soil “Now you have the MDA marching in there and doing whole herd testing and pushing NAIS,” says Greg.

What bothers Greg and other is the steady encroachment by state and federal authorities into the arena of herdshares and private buying clubs, whereby milk and other raw dairy products go directly to a private group of individuals who have a stake and involvement in a dairy’s operations. This issue is what lay behind the highly contentious New York state case involving Meadowsweet Dairy; the case is on appeal following a judge’s ruling that Meadowsweet can’t serve a private group of consumers outside the regulatory structure of the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets. (For background, search under “Meadowsweet”.)

The Michigan situation ostensibly brings to the local level some of the issues Dave Milano, Miguel, Blair McMorran, Don Wittlinger, and others raise following my previous post about HR 2749. As they suggest, regulators and other policy wonks have a very hard time appreciating why many of us here don’t take well to ever-more regulation of the food system. (For more, see the exchange in the comments on the Marler blog between myself, Bill Marler, and others about the issue of rights. A regulator describes me as “a well meaning person” who obviously doesn’t understand well-meaning regulators for objecting to HR 2749’s giving FDA the right to come into businesses and inspect their records without a search warrant.)

Presumably we’ll hear more from the Michigan Fresh Milk Council. (I tried reaching a couple of individuals involved, but they seem to be away.)

***

Speaking of state initiatives on raw milk, I should learn more this weekend about happenings when I attend the annual conference of the Northeast Organic Farming Association beginning Friday at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst. I’m participating in a raw milk roundtable that will feature updates on the raw milk regulatory front around the region. Later in the day, I am making a presentation on “The Raw Milk Revolution”.

The NOFA conference sounds like a full schedule of informative and fun happenings, if you’re in the area.