Mark McAfee has been on self-imposed exile from this blog since his plea bargain deal a few weeks ago on a criminal indictment in connection with shipping raw milk outside California—on the advice of counsel, he wants to avoid irritating the federal Food and Drug Administration raw-milk-phobes.
I am as offended as others on this blog that the government’s anti-raw-milk offensive includes intimidation against free speech. But such is life in twenty-first century America—you make raw milk yogurt on your farm, and watch the undercover agents drop their terrorism and Chinese food safety investigations to descend on your home, guns drawn, quicker than bears head out at the smell of honey.
Mark hasn’t just been sitting around twiddling his thumbs, though. He’s plunged back into promoting Organic Pastures Dairy Co. by visiting farmers markets and encouraging consumers to let public officials know about the benefits they receive from raw milk. He also submitted a Citizen Petition to the FDA seeking to un-do the federal prohibition on interstate shipments of raw milk. Yes, there are apparently occasional cases where Citizen Petitions convinced the bureaucrats to change their policies on a food or drug, but it’s real hard to imagine it happening here. But who knows, people occasionally do win in Las Vegas.
Actually, Mark’s most interesting new endeavor involves a mini-campaign he just launched to encourage conventional dairies to consider transforming themselves into raw milk producers. He feels that in this economy, with bulk milk prices heading down together with other farm commodities, and dairy farmers once again facing economic hardship, the raw milk market remains a rare untapped opportunity area in recession-plagued America.
So he sent an email ten days ago, which he copied me in on, encouraging just such an approach to Gary Conover, the governmental affairs liaison of the Western United Dairymen, which says in part:
“With processed milk demand in CA at very low levels and dairymen committing suicide from farm failures… California can take the lead and look to a new vision. I am serious and ask that you to privately really think about this. Perhaps it is not so crazy after all. We have the greatest technologies to be able to test raw milk and if antibiotics and BST are out of the mix…raw milk from a confinement dairy can be produced safely. Claravale Dairy has done this for 80 years and not one pathogen found or illness ever.
“When I attended the WUD conference last month it appeared clear to me that radical change needs to happen. Dairymen are pissed and upset and they need thoughtful leadership and consumer connected marketing. The FDA and CDFA (maybe with your leadership they might) will not help you with this….the consumers are your connection. Consumers buy your CA milk not the FDA. So screw the FDA and their rules….let’s make our own in CA and help farmers and consumers connect and get off the roller coaster caused by their regs and sterile concepts. People and their bodies need raw milk enzymes, raw fats,and biodiversity. Immune depression is a national crisis because of the FDA drug pushing policies. We can change all of that.
“Consumers absolutely love raw milk…If people could get good clean raw milk there would not be enough raw milk in CA at any price.”
I thought that was pretty neat. Here’s a guy who controls the California raw milk market with 70% to 80% of the sales, and he’s encouraging other farmers to get in on the action. Sure, you can argue that if other dairies sell raw milk, it will expand the market, and also that Mark’s regulatory misery could ease with some company. But I’ll just tell you from a lot of experience writing about entrepreneurship and emerging markets of all types: you don’t see too many entrepreneurs openly encouraging competitors to join them in a lucrative market. In fact, entrepreneurs who succeed in gaining such substantial market share invariably raise prices to take advantage of a near-monopoly situation, and assume a very low profile in the hope no one notices their unseemly success.
The other neat thing about Mark’s proposal is that it could offer a way to test out some of the ideas discussed on this blog about a middle ground for regulation of raw milk–specifically, Steve Bemis’ “Ten Great Thoughts.”
Following up on Mark’s letter, I wrote Conover, asking him what his reaction is to Mark’s idea. Under what circumstances might his association recommend “going raw” to their members?
Not surprisingly, I didn’t receive a response to my note, nor has Mark to his email. While the Western United Dairymen is a trade association, ostensibly charged with helping its members improve their economic lot, its real purpose is to serve the status quo, regardless of how much pain members are enduring, and to help big dairies get bigger, and put the little guys out of business.
Maybe some membersof Western United Dairymen will read this and make demands of their leadership to consider this kind of idea. Kudos to Mark McAfee for pushing positive change.
What happened to promoting grass-based raw milk ?
Power in numbers, this would aide the raw dairies to battle the govts. It sounds like a great plan, especially as others come on board. Raw dairy is not going to disappear, nor are those demanding healthy natural foods. There will always be a market for them.
I prefer my milk from grass fed/pastured cows. Using the word "confinement" brings forth the visuals of the nasty confinement dairies around Sacramento.
Competition, for the consumer, guarantees a high quality and low cost product (which then increases consumer demand). Folks may find it odd that Mark is trying to drum up some competition, but when your industry is threatened, some competition can go a long way.
Smart move.
As far as competition goes, he’s still the leader of the pack – he’s got brand recognition, he’s got customer loyalty, a history of clean milk, and he’s got the grassfed edge – which milk would you pull off the shelf? Conventional raw, or Organic Pastures raw?
What’s needed is a consumer letter-writing campaign to the Western United Dairymen, begging them to supply raw milk. It’s easy to ignore a maverick, but paying customers during a depression?
If he could offer his consulting services to dairies that are going down, and bring them up to speed quickly and safely, there will be a stampede to raw.
How can we help?
-Blair
Really? The history in California says otherwise – outbreaks, recalls, outsourcing. Improvements might be possible, but to suggest this history doesn’t exist, or should be forgotten/ignored? Hmm.
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/blog/2008/04/the_elephant_in_the_raw_milk_r.html
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/
And this is about food safety and the dangers of raw milk? BS, BS, and BS
"WHEN THE GOVERNMENT FEARS THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE LIBERTY, WHEN THE PEOPLE FEAR THE GOVERNMENT YOU HAVE TYRANNY" THOMAS JEFFERSON
What is the state of liberty and freedom in our nation today? Compromise our right to choose what we put in our own mouth NO. What would Nathan Hale have to say about that or is that just to old fashion these days?
I agree with Dave’s statement. What is to compromise? What "middle ground" are they (govt people) referring to? I’m still waiting to hear the reasoning behind raw milk being illegal? Why is it treated so different than other foods? Why do the dairy farmers allow the govt to regulate the price of milk?
I have seen too many farmers who, in the face of large demand for natural products, have gotten huge. The allure of fame, fortune and power is too great for many to resist. They usually regret it later on. And like any large company, theirs live on usually in corrupt form long after they have passed from the scene.
What the future needs is a multitude of small family farms. We as farmers should be encouraging others to get in to it. But I don’t believe this can come from converting confinement operations. They usually are only chasing the money. If some farmers see the light with respect to healthy food then great. But I think greater opportunity lies with encouraging and helping new farmers to get started. This can be done well through apprenticeships, particularly if as part of the deal you help them find rental land and provide either small starter herds or low cost lease animals.
Doing this a farm can grow a multitude of like minded peer producers; which is much better than growing yourself huge or getting a bunch of unnatural confinement ops to change their marketing angle.
Mark is unique in this approach, and far from ‘represents’ the business model that serves raw milk best. Hundred cows dairies are not the answer to the raw milk supply ‘problem’. Small farms, grass based, where the farmer actually milks his own cows, and the resulting produce isn’t shipped out by the truckload is a better way. Yes this might make it more difficult for those jugs to be on the store shelves, but promoting a better relationship between farmer and consumer is a smarter, more meaningful tact. Making raw milk ‘easier’ will have it’s price.
Mark is alone out there catching the major heat. While his passion for raw milk is strong, he needs some cover. He’s a big fish in a school of little ones, and when the sharks come around, he’s the easy target. Encouraging more big fish to join the school, will make it safer for him. I question the degree of altruism that David lauds on him.
California needs more raw milk, as does the rest of the country….but taking the short road, and trying to change the beast that is conventional milk production isn’t the best way. Encouraging new farms, small farmers that milk a dozen or two cows is more substantial. Allowing cow shares and promoting a different, new delivery system is better.
You cannot escape the laws of Nature….and quality is, was, and always will be inversely proportional to quantity. Mark should be trying to help small farms set up grass based cow shares in California….not convince those who hire cheap labor to shovel grain to their 1 or 2 lactation commodities, that there’s more profit doing it his way.
Here’s an example (abbreviated): A state where raw milk sales are banned had legislation to relax the law and allow some sales (not the state where I live). There was at least one regulator involved that did not necessarily oppose the change given the strong public outcry for access to raw milk. Labeling was part of the "deal." In the end, advocates showed up at a hearing booing and hissing at the very person who was open to changing the law (with compromise). Communication was shut down, no compromise…
So, indeed "principle" won the day: the bill failed ,and raw milk sales remain illegal and underground in that state.
What state did this happen in? What is all the data? What is the whole story?
Perhaps the new law was so bad that things would be worse if the law was passed.
I’m sure that more was involved that just labelling.
http://medheadlines.com/2009/01/23/fda-says-no-to-labels-on-food-from-genetically-engineered-animals/
Frankenmeats approved and we have no choise or right to know if it is or isnt natural. At least if I buy a used car I can get a repair history but no prior history provided for food!!! For those who would have us go begging before these madmen for access and their approval of raw dairy all I can say is good luck compromising with these corporate devils.
"allow some sells" What the heck is that supposed to mean? What is the "bill" you spoke of? Where can we research it it? As said, your condensed version is leaving a lot of information out. There is nothing to compromise about. The dairy produces the milk and sells it.
I saw that story Don. That is really pathetic. I am looking at retirement is 2 yrs, the land I am searching for keeps expanding. I have no problem with raising chickens and having my garden to dig in. I had not envisioned myself being a farmer and raising all my own foods to include meats. I don’t want to milk any cows at this point in my life. I will if that is the only way to get what I believe is healthier and safer than the frankenphoods.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=112645
They know that the overwhelming majority of consumers oppose genetically engineered meats. HENCE NO LABELS! Screw the consumer we dont matter, just shut up and eat what is provided!
It seems that GE meat can contain DNA or Genomes from other species, will human and animal combo be next? If so would that make us cannibals?
The nightmare just gets worse, we will rue the day we compromise with this mindset.
I am very leery of a major grocery chain being able to sell raw milk. I would think that they would source raw dairy from confinement operations because the milk would be cheaper.
Direct farm to consumer sales are the best avenue for both the farmer and consumer. I would love to see healthy, productive small farms ring towns and cities again. Far too many of these old dairy/crop lands have grown houses in the past two generations rather than food.
Raw milk from local producers, obtained under private agreements, should not have regulation. These relationships are qualitatively different. All that should be required in the local case, is that the consumer have basic information, e.g. that what they are getting is in fact raw milk (or raw milk products), and that the product carry a basic warning to put the possibly-uninformed on notice. There should be voluntary standards for farmers with suggested testing and frequency – although, if you and your farmer are comfortable with his/her expertise with less testing than the voluntary standard, then that’s up to the parties. Parents may feed their kids what they choose, but common courtesy should require visitors (and others with incidental access to the family’s raw milk) to be advised that raw milk is served in the home, so that they may refuse if they choose. If the local relationship happens to cross state lines, that should not be the federal government’s business. My suggestion for defining what is "local" is that an approach be adopted similar to the federal egg law (flocks of less than 3000 hens are exempt) – this would have to be discussed, but I’d suggest that a herd of less than 100 milking cows be exempt.
I had some regrets posting a partial story, especially one from a state where I do not work. But, I simply cannot expand on the details (location, year) in a blog forum. Of course, there were many factors involved beyond the bit that was shared, which I thought was relevant to the discussion about communication. One hope in throwing out a partial example….do readers here have stories about what worked or did not work in pursuing the legislative route (vs. the civil disobedience approach – refusal to apply for a license/permit, get arrested, etc. – that approach has been covered here and on similar blogs extensively)?
For example, how are things going in Arkansas with HB1114?
http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1114
The California situation has been discussed at length on this blog. From your comment…
"Perhaps the new law was so bad that things would be worse if the law was passed."
This is an interesting insight about any bill, but potentially reflects a situation where communication is not open to amend and improve a newly proposed law….
Arkansas HB 1114 would ALLOW a farmer to sell ONLY 100 gallons of raw milk a month which is 3.3 gallons a day. This is more of the MADNESS just a few crumbs falling from the Kings tables if the bill even passes. And us poor serfs will be happy to have access to 100 gallons because 100 gallons is better than zero gallons. At $6 or $7 a gallon would it even be worth the trouble for a farmer to sell raw milk being limlted to 100 gallon per month?
The federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance gives the states the authority to "issue" licenses and permits.No where in the law is the authority given to "require" a license or permit.Only the buyer can require a permit as a condition on which it will buy the milk.An offer of a permit or license is an offer of a contract.A contract is only lawful when both parties to that contract enter it voluntarily.Any offer that cannot be refused is not a lawful offer to contract.Refusing to get a license or permit means only that I need to find a buyer that does not require me to have a permit as a condition of sale.There is absolutely no law being broken by my refusal to have a permit.Regulators who don’t understand this are breaking the law when they confiscate property and fine those farmers who don’t get permits.
If we do still live in a society that is ruled by laws rather than kings and everyone(including regulatory agencies) is equal before the law,how can anyone force another to enter a contract against his will?
Per Steve, it makes sense that the regulations should be scaled to the size and type of operation, and for raw dairy include a simple warning about potential pathogen risks/risk groups. I’m curious about choosing the number 100 cows for "small" or exempt status – what is the typical size (number milking cows) for farmers doing herd shares and direct on-farm sales? 100 seems a bit high (how about 25-50).
Don – I actually agree with you on the absurdity of the volume limit (100 gallons/month). That is strange public health policy (would be interesting to see it debated in a general public health policy forum outside the infectious disease crowd). It is like proposing to ration the number of cigarettes sold per store – only the first 100 customers get the cancer/heart disease risk? For raw dairy, the volume limit seems like saying in lieu of a ban, we’ll let the first people in line buy the product and get sick (less burden on the health care system). Ridiculous…
I think the real problem with "volume" occurs when raw dairy goes into commercial stores many 100’s of miles from the farmer (or shipped from the Internet – an aside, are folks aware that freezing and storing milk/colostrum destroys vitamins/enzymes along the lines of pasteurization??). Raw dairy bought fresh from a local farm naturally limits the scope of an outbreak if one were to occur, and the face-to-face interaction with the customers theorectically could bring a greater sense of responsibility for quality and safety than all the regulations in the world. Caveat: unfortunately, I think the misinformation about pathogens being "good bacteria" and improving immunity spread around the raw milk movement is playing a significant role in why public health continues to put roadblocks in the way of raw dairy sales. The visceral reaction on this blog when anyone even brings up pathogens and raw dairy might send this message – if a dairyman doesn’t believe pathogens exist, then sanitation isn’t very important. I actually think the majority of farmers producing raw dairy know sanitation is important (or we’d see more illnesses/outbreaks), but the message about ignoring pathogen risks on top of skipping the kill step (pasteurization) is shouted loudly on the blogs – the public health community hears that message, and worries…
Licenses are relatively recent in the history of man and they are little more than tools of the STATE TO CONTROL its individual citizens. IMO
" I think the misinformation about pathogens being "good bacteria" and improving immunity spread around the raw milk movement is playing a significant role in why public health continues to put roadblocks in the way of raw dairy sales. "
The normal flora in and on the human body is vast. The key is balance between them. Since E-coli is already in the gut, then whichever bacteria that keeps it in check is needed.
Apparently, some call the natural bacteria "pathogens" . Natural bacteria can do harm, yet those bacteria are needed to maintain the gut in a healthy manner.
Public health misinforms the public often. They are not working with the farmers. I don’t recall anyone on this blog stating that sanitation wasn’t important. The lack of sanitation at the factory dairies speaks volumes of thier practices and the govts "regulations".
http://www.oikos.no/newsread/readimage.aspx?WCI=GetByID&IMAGEID=4&DOCID=10680
http://www.gastroresource.com/GITextbook/en/Chapter7/7-16.htm
http://www.mansfield.ohio-state.edu/~sabedon/biol2035.htm
http://bioinfo.bact.wisc.edu/themicrobialworld/NormalFlora.html
You did not answer my questions.
Therefore I can only conclude that any statements you made about that particular state are false.
Give the full data and then we can have intelligent discourse.
Fair enough. Sorry I don’t have more information for the blog.
A license or permit is a contract.Many businesses benefit from entering a contract with the state.They receive reduced liability in return for following the procedures layed out by the state.They might gain access to a larger market.Before entering any contract we should weigh the costs and benefits.A large farm like OP could benefit from a reasonable contract with the state.Small farms that deal directly with friends and family can’t see any benefits from these contracts while there are many costs.Getting a license so that we won’t be hassled doesn’t work because by getting a license we get ourselves into a situation where we are now bound by this contract to the ever changing whim of the regulators who would like to regulate us out of business.
licensing has gotten way out of hand it’s true.With license fees,continuing education classes and tests,it has become an industry of its own.It’s easy to see why there is pressure to license every activity now.It not only gives the state more control,it also employes more people in government work and brings in more money.People tend to believe that the state has the authority to require all of these licenses,but it is in reality only an offer to contract with them.If the offer does not include enough benefits to ofset the restrictions it is wise to decline the offer.
Miguel and Don – your descriptions of the license/permit issue are well-spoken, and make sense in a big picture way. I can appreciate the question about where government should draw the line. Your explanation suggests drawing the line in a different place than where it currently exists. But, often there is a focus on the "regulator" as the evil doer. They can’t change the line – how would that work…wake up one day and tell the boss, "I’m not going to enforce the rules." They all have bosses to report to – even the so-called high-ups vilified on this bog. Until there is a court decision saying "such and such" no longer needs to be licensed, I think the regulators will keep regulating. Is this incorrect thinking?
Sylvia – again, sorry for throwing out partial information on the bill. In retrospect, I regret it. I don’t have all of the facts, and cannot start a dissection of that bill on this blog based on my partial information (which was reliable, but incomplete). I’ve followed this blog off and on over time, and have seen the tremendous amount of speculation and accusation that occurred following the E. coli O157:H7 outbreak in CA in 2006 – much of the discussion was based on bits and pieces from the media and second-hand reports. That is not productive. I guess, in giving the bill example, I hoped readers might share first-hand (factual) experiences that they had relating to the legislative process, and raw dairy specifically…build on the discussion. But, maybe that is not possible from either "side" – there is considerable secrecy in these matters.
Propaganda is another tool used that has reached everyone and the main theme is FEAR based on half truths and lies.
There is a war on raw dairy and in a war there is what is call the fog of war so consider what this fellow had to say.
" In wartime the TRUTH is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of LIES" Churchhill
Sorting out the TRUTH is of utmost importance and indeed can be very very distrurbing.
Your slant is consistent and obvious to those that can see through it.
They teach that any law or rule is only as good as the enforcement in 7th grade. The notion that the regulators have to enforce the laws is total bunk! Quite often its up to the discretion of the regulators to decide whether to take action or not. The heavy handedness that weve seen from regulators in certain states IS evil.especially when others in different states dont seem to be forced to be as aggressive. Here again you try and create a false reality, and make the regulators seem the victims.manual flatulence.
Also your portrayal of raw milk aficionados as rude, intolerant criminals is again the desire to create a false reality. The passion for raw milk is tremendous, especially given the miracle of health that it lends itself to. But your inability to provide details of your example, again shows your technique to deceive, garner support, and make your case in an underhanded and shallow way.
Nowhere has anyone with half a mind referred to good bacteria as pathogens.again here you twist the truth to vilify the raw milkers and try to build your case on a false premise. And the notion that this is why the health community is coming down on raw milk is BS. Raw milk is being persecuted for one and one reason aloneand its not the health angle. Big Dairy is threatened, and the cigar smoking, board room campaign donors, are calling in the favors. Many higher ups in the regulatory bodies are previous employees of the milk cookers, and the revolving door between big business and government leaves the consumer (and the small producer) with the short end of the stick. The health angle is used only for convenience…they can’t come out and say that they are protecting the big milk co ops….can they. (And lets be clear here Big Dairy feels that they ‘own’ milk, and fear that the raw milk will decrease their marketshare, especially as more people realize the miracle that it is…money money money…. coming from one of the most socialist, anti free market entities in the country)
Your arguments are weak and build upon a sandstone foundation (but it is fun poking holes in them, and revealing them for what they truly are).
Lykke,
Start by asking to see the law in writing that you are asked to enforce.If it is not written down or they refuse to show it as they did with Mark Nolt,then it doesn’t exist.If they show you something in writing,is it a law?Statutes ,which are often called laws,need our consent to have the force of law upon us.This is why we are offered licenses and permits.We have to sign an application form to get the permit.The implication of signing an application for a permit is that the regulatory agency has the authority to grant us permission to participate in a certain activity.If that is true ,then it also has the authority to deny us permission.Where did it get it’s authority???Well, when we sign the application for the permit,we give the authority over our activity to the agency by entering a legal contract with them.We can and do, often ,give up our inalienable rights when we enter into contracts.We are all free to give up our rights voluntarily,but no one can give up another’s rights on their behalf.Without our signature on a contract that clearly states the rights we are abandoning,the agency does not have any enforcable law to show us.
The Constitution grants specific powers to the government.Government wants more power over us ,so it has to deceive us into granting it the powers it wants.To force us through "laws" to get licenses and permits would easily shown to be unconstitutional. That is why I can be sure that you are being asked to enforce laws that do not exist
its true (and well known) that regulators have the choice to enforce or not. attacking small farmers over "health issues" is surely driven by big business calling in favors to protect themselves from citizens learning the truth. that truth is: they are poisoning us all for profit.
they corrupted the definition of organic to the point of making it meaningless. and they charge more for it. in the past, consumers were duped. but with the green revolution and by local, eat real food movement (potentially the largest most sweeping movement ever to sweep america and the world they are scared.
as people join the moement they cannot help but learn the truth. big agra cannot ever (under it’s existing model) provide real food, their processes cannot be adapted and still remain big.
they believe they have to stamp out the remainder of the real food providers before it gets out of hand and beyond their control. what they miss is that it is already too late and was really never possible in the first place. the death throws of big agra will be violent and angry and they will go kicking and screaming. but they will die.
the only way for them is to kill the green revolution…. which i don’t believe is possible at this point.
we need to force legislators to see the reality of the nations ills, healthcare starts with a real food diet. corporate food systems cannot provide real food. real food must be produced locally to the community if it is to be unprocessed.
the threat to big agra is real, it is big, so big it will destroy them because they cannot operate without processing. the nature of local, green, healthy demands no processing.
currently milk is broken down into it’s component parts, some of those parts are sold to foreign countries and the same componebt is then bought from another country then the "milk" or is it "malk" is reconstituted as a "food product" this is done because they can save a penny a pound (or less) it’s a risky and ugly way to increase profits. now instead of factory milk coming from 10’s of thousands of cows it comes from 100’s of thousands of cows scattered around the world.
what’s in factory milk? local milk (say mine for example) comes from one cow. my cow(s) are happy grass fed pastured as a micro herd and brought inside to a fresh clean stall in bad weather…
milk farmer and others probably know that a happy cow will actually do the happy cow dance when she is being led to new pasture and she knows it. one of mine puts all for feet together and actually jumps off the ground and does a sorta jig. much like a newborn calf does.
My animals do the same pasture dance. I have a heifer that will occasionally, in winter, dance when I bring our a fresh bale of good grass hay and plop it on the snow.
John F. Kennedy stated that, The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. This lends to Vladimir Lenins reasoning that, A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
If the lie (pseudoscientific idealism) is perceived as truth by those self righteous enough to impose it on society, then we cannot have freedom.
Whether up to their belies deep in snow or heading out to pasture cattle are playful and curious by nature. The freedom to roam and do as they please will nurture the above qualities enhances their overall health and the quality of the milk they produce.
Ken Conrad
milk farmer, I do not have much time to write more (later), but agree that on my end it is fun having you poke holes in my thoughts/inquiries. I’m not out to change anyone’s mind (and likely won’t change my mind much either), but the recent discussions have been stimulating. I don’t think we have to agree on everything in order to find common ground. If there is any agenda on my part, it relates to finding a way to reduce the waste of precious time by farmers and government alike fighting about permits, pathogen testing, etc.
On the truly happy cows – we agree. I will pay a premium for products from animals treated as you describe (but there is much question in my mind about how the market defines "cage free," "free range," "grass fed," or "organic." Who’s policing/regulating these claims? More on that later. Thanks.