SB 201, the legislation that provides Californias raw milk dairies with a way around the questionable coliform standard, passed the state senate Saturday 34-3, as part of a rare budget-crunch weekend session.
It passed despite significant last-ditch efforts to derail the legislation, including:
- The posting of the incendiary sick-kid video on YouTube, discussed at length in my three previous posts;
- A heavily promoted effort, including an opposition letter and press release, from germ lawyer Bill Marler;
- An about-face by the Western United Dairymen, from support of SB 201 in the Assembly a few weeks ago to opposition in the Senate Friday and Saturday;
- And an appearance out of the shadows by the by the California Department of Food and Agriculture at a Senate Agriculture Committee hearing Friday in opposition, following months of refusing to even comment on the legislation.
Now SB 201 continues its improbable journey to the office of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
And, based on the array of explosives the opponents pulled out of their bag of tricks in preparation for the Senate vote, expect the intensity level to move up several notches over the next few weeks. I would expect opponents to throw out more examples of sick kidssince theyve pretty much exhausted the California supply with the Chris Martin video, look for them to pull in cases from other states.
Essentially, what weve seen is a ratcheting up of the pressure each step of the way. There were barely peeps of opposition when SB 201 passed the Assembly by a unanimous vote a few weeks ago. Then, last week, Bill Marler began the opposition program, presumably acting as a stand-in for the CDFA. He posted the video of Chris Martin on life support on YouTube, and promoted a letter to state senators in which he argued that there were assorted deficiencies and weaknesses in SB 201.
He concluded that SB 201 would tie the hands of CDPH and CDFA by limiting their enforcement powers in the event pathogens are found in raw milk.
According to Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., and a major proponent of SB 201, this is a blatant misstatement. SB 201 allows a very quick response to any pathogen found to be present. Current voluntary testing is done one time per month. SB 201 mandates a test twice per week. If positive the state can act and the dairy will act immediately.
For additional explanation about SB 201, its worth reading Steve Bemis excellent summary as a comment following my initial post this week about the Chris Martin tape on YouTube.
Marlers concerns for the poor defenseless CDFA, in particular, are ironic, since the CDFA refused two stern requests from Sen. Dean Florez, one of the sponsors of SB 201, to appear at a day-long hearing about SB 201 in April.
As I said, though, the steady buildup to SB 201 is likely to continue pending the governor’s decision. It will be up to raw milk proponents to make sure they dont get outmaneuvered by the regulator/big-business/big-money legal interests. There will be lots of maneuvering going on.
What test are you using to safeguard the public (and your business)?
-Blair
Mr. Marler’s critique of SB201, other than attempting to leverage his as-yet-unproven lawsuits, is easily answered by the statute itself. Further, I am totally confident (even, a bit apprehensive) that all of the complaints about the lack of specificity in the law will be filled in, by CDFA itself, in regulations to be issued.
As a raw milk advocate, I’m actually concerned about the law’s vagueness in many respects, since it will leave the fight about what is an adequate HACCP to regulation by CDFA and the State Department of Public Health (33462). Similarly, when the law says "The department shall deem raw milk containing an amount of any such pathogen [e.g., campylobacter jejuni, e coli 0157:H7, listeria monocytogenes, and salmonella specified in the line above] as nonconforming," (33468) this leaves no doubt what will happen if the monthly (vs. present zero) testing for these pathogens reveals their presence, as well as the twice-weekly (vs. present zero, for both raw and pasteurized milk) testing for e coli 0157:H7. If there is any doubt in the law, I have no doubt that CDFA and the State Department of Health will make things crystal clear in the forthcoming regulations (which will be hard-fought, due to many legitimate questions, on both sides, about various testing protocols, false positives, etc.)
I realize this kind of exposition may be boring to non-lawyers, but just like the video, when unspecific allegations swirl, it helps to nail down what’s really being discussed. This law is solid, many wise folks have had input, and the last-minute effort to defeat is simply another manifestation of the heavy-handed tactics preferred and previously utilized by CDFA and its minions in their opposition to any raw milk supply in the state of California.
8/19/08 USA TODAY reports that the court ruled in favor of the USDA ban against Creekstone Farms Premium Beef packer from buying Mad Cow disease test kits that would allow them to ensure the meat they sold is Mad Cow disease free. The USDA has decided to protect the interest of the large meat packers, therefore no Mad Cow testing equals no Mad Cow disease. HMM
The large meat packers insist on no testing for the small meat packers. Now there is raw milk to be subjected to many more tests. This seems like insanity, one standard for meat and a opposite one for raw milk. The USDA provides me no comfort in any product that they oversee.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/lawyer-oped/grassfed-vs-grainfed-beef-and-the-holy-grail-a-literature-review/index.html
It looks like Milkweed spent a couple thousand $ for these tests, and they obviously need much more to be statistically meaningful (randomizing, multiple samples, probably sampling throughout the year, etc.). The UHT (ultra-high temperature) pasteurized samples came in dead last for CLA’s (conjugated linoleic acid – proven to be important anti-cancer substance). Who will do more of these important tests?? Industry is not likely to do it. Government should, but their minds are made up.
Those are exciting results and appear science-based. Not sure if you caught the ahead-of- print citation in the Marler post, but the authors present more scientific evidence about the nutritional differences, even if they do not commit to a conclusion (no scientist would at this point). It would be good if this research could be used to "help" promote healthy diets, without going overboard, like what’s happened with raw milk.
Recent Findings in the Literature
In searching through the literature since Hancock and Bessers review, several new papers relevant to the discussion were found.
1. Nutritional aspects of grass-fed beef.
Leheska, J. M., L. D. Thompson, J. C. Howe, E. Hentges, J. Boyce, J. C. Brooks, B. Shriver, L. Hoover, and M. F. Miller. 2008. Effects of conventional and grass feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J Anim Sci.
This paper explores the question about whether there are differences in nutrient composition of grass-fed beef compared with conventional (grain)-fed beef. Researchers have previously found higher omega-3 fatty acids and CLA (conjugated linoleic acid) in forage-fed beef, and lower fat content overall. Some consumers prefer eating grass-fed meat because they believe it is healthier, and/or tastes better than conventional beef.
The authors of this study enrolled only producers that were marketing grass-fed beef and confirmed that 100% of the diets were made up of native grasses, forages, or cut grasses or forages.
Fatty acid composition of grass-fed and conventional-fed beef was found to be different, but the authors conclude the effects of the lipid differences between grass-fed and conventional raised beef, on human health, remains to be investigated.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/08/articles/lawyer-oped/grassfed-vs-grainfed-beef-and-the-holy-grail-a-literature-review/
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 08/18/2008 04:53:55 PM PDT
CRESCENT CITY, Calif.A Del Norte County dairy has ended its raw milk program after more than a dozen people fell ill, including a woman who became partially paralyzed.
The raw milk came from Alexandre Family EcoDairy Farms, which supplied the product to 115 customers.
The county’s Department of Public Health suspects at least 15 people were sickened by Campylobacter, a common bacteria found in domesticated animals. The department has confirmed three cases, and are awaiting test results for the other 12.
Alexandre EcoDairy voluntary stopped its raw milk program June 15 after learning one of its customers was hospitalized. That woman later became partially paralyzed by a rare disorder often associated with Campylobacter infection.
Raw, or unpasteurized, milk has surged in popularity in recent years, fueled by consumers’ concerns about the chemicals and hormones used in traditional dairy farming.
It is illegal for most dairies to sell raw milk in California, but it is not illegal to get it from your own animal, so many raw milk devotees buy into cow share programs like the one set up by Alexandre EcoDairy. The dairy allowed consumers to buy stock in a cow and have access to its raw milk, as well as organic eggs, beef, ice cream and cheese.
Before joining the program, consumers were given a binder full of information the health risks and required to sign an agreement relieving the dairy of liability, said owner Blake Alexandre.
"I wanted people to be very clear on the risks," he said. "They’re realizing that the risks are there and they’ll realize that the benefits outweigh the risks and they’ll come begging for it."
Information from: The Daily Triplicate, http://www.triplicate.com
The individuals sickened had acquired a condition known as Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) and one case of Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura (TTP). HUS is a disorder that occurs when an infection in the digestive system produces toxic substances that destroy red blood cells. It often effects the kidneys. This disorder is most common in children. It often occurs after a gastrointestinal (enteric) infection, often caused by a type of Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria, O157:H7. Unpasteurized (Raw) milk has been associated with several outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 infections in the U.S. Other outbreaks of E. coli O157:H7 have been associated with undercooked or raw hamburger (ground beef), unpasteurized fruit juices, alfalfa sprouts, dry-cured salami, lettuce, game meats and from transmission from animals to humans from contact with infected animals. HUS also can be caused by other enteric infections, including Shigella and Salmonella, and some non-enteric infections. Patients with TTP have clinical and pathologic features similar to patients with HUS.
In addition to Department of Agriculture staff, the investigation involved the Connecticut Department of Public Health and local health departments. After extensive testing of milk, milk contact surfaces, water sources, the environment in and around the farm and processing plant and, analysis of feces from each milking aged animal, the department obtained a genetic fingerprint match between E. coli O157:H7 recovered from the feces of 1 cow and E. coli O157:H7 isolated from 3 patients.
Approximately 170 separate samples and specimens of milk, water, feces and swabs of milk contact surfaces were analyzed by the DPH Public Health Laboratory in a 3 week period. A review of scientific literature reveals that E. coli O157:H7 as well as other food borne pathogens most likely are introduced into milk by contamination from animals shedding the organism in their feces. Direct introduction of pathogens into the milk from the bloodstream is unlikely but can not be ruled out. The department has concluded that the most likely cause of this food borne illness outbreak was the consumption of Retail Raw Milk contaminated with E. coli O157:H7. While good sanitation and management practices can lower the incidence of pathogens in raw milk we believe and studies support the position that pasteurization is the only proven way to eliminate pathogens from raw milk.
The Connecticut Department of Public Health and the Food and Drug Administration, and other public health authorities such as the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments, the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, the Association of Food and Drug Officials, and National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians all oppose the consumption of unpasteurized milk because of the health risks.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/
Name of that rare disorder, please.
Gwen
I am curious as to how the European Starling study at OSU comes out. Maybe they can do flock migration studies, and determine where infectious e-coli REALLY comes from; is most concentrated and then take care of those places so the birds won’t spread it to my nice, green pasture.
I think more energy and money is spent on banning raw milk right now though. Who really cares where infectious e-coli comes from?
Gwen
Gwen, you’d be a tough reviewer on a grant. But, the mystery of E. coli O111 in OK, and the emerging issue of feeding chocolate colostrum to kids to prevent (what?) is worth discussion, and funding.
Food rights are fine, but don’t push them without describing the consequences of drinking raw milk. Are we focusing on you only? Hardly. You are promoting putting a dangerous product in the stomachs of infants. Generally, Ive found that people dont grind up oysters and put them in baby bottles (another high risk food raw oysters).
My vote goes with with the topsoil guys. The bulk of these posts – except for a few enlightened – is just contentious.
The ones with generic names would have a lot more credibility if they put their name behind their posts. If you need to be anonymous, I need to know why. Otherwise, i assume you have something to hide, and I discount everything you post..
Know your source,
-Blair
It is biased and is a case of special pleading.
It needs to be discounted.
Anti raw milk folks seem to think that continually reposting the same erroneous info will change think.
33466. A dairy farm that produces and processes raw milk is
prohibited from receiving any raw milk from any other source for
purposes of processing that raw milk, unless that source is a
California dairy farm that produces and processes raw milk in
accordance with the standards for raw milk as set forth in this
article.
Concerning the testing protocols of which you complain for lack of specificity, it is totally typical that a statute would not have such details; they will be left to regulation, and given CDFA’s general attitude about raw milk, we can expect stiff proposals for regulation, and a spirited discussion about that regulation with the regulated community, as issues of false positives (particularly with the new methods for listeria m. which are being employed) and other testing issues are debated.
This bill provides important and substantial improvements in process controls and in testing. With twice-weekly testing for e coli 0157:H7 (section 33467) and monthly testing for 0157:H7 and for the other three principal pathogens (section 33468), together with the process system control represented by the requirement for a HACCP (sections 33463, 33464, 33465) which presumably will include cleanliness procedures to minimize or prevent shedding of feces into the milk (the vector for 0157:H7), this bill will offer a major improvement, particularly for larger operations which customers cannot easily access to satisfy themselves.
This blog has been filled with lengthy expositions, drawn largely from the propaganda put out by Marler, filled with supposed scientific string-cites, many of which have been debunked on the realmilk site (www.realmilk.com). Assuming that the reports of illnesses in children are all true for the sake of this argument, the implacable resistance to SB201, the provisions of which would directly address the risks of pathogens (and the provisions of which were supported by experts, both pro and con, at the Florez hearings), can mean only one thing. Resistance to SB201 means a desire to revert to coliform testing, which in the opinion of all the experts is inferior to the HACCP/pathogen approach which the current bill embodies. However, the larger dairies cannot consistently meet the coliform standard, so reliance on that coliform standard alone, means raw milk production would not exist in California.
Raw milk advocates understand this strategy to eliminate it. The strategy is not rocket science. If you want an open colloquy, it would be helpful if you explained just how SB201 fails to address the problems which you cite, and while you’re at it, don’t mischaracterize or ignore what the bill says.
Again, the bill (6 short pages, with all the trimmings) is at the following link: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_201_bill_20080805_amended_asm_v90.pdf as last amended on August 5, 2008.
I don’t have a laboratory with fancy microscopes and test tubes to do scientific experiments,but I do have soil and plants and animals that I observe carefully every day.
Someone once told me "if you ain’t experimentin, you ain’t farmin."
So when I read an interesting study about feeding soil or plants or animals,I try the ideas out to see if they seem to make sense.Not a scientific study ,but if it works for me,I take it and build on it.Not feeding grain works for me better than feeding grain did.
As far as the studies about e-coli 0157:H7 being reduced in cows not fed grain,I have no direct evidence to know which is true.I have been puzzleing over information about gene expression.Apparently bacteria have lots of clever ways to adjust to sudden changes in their environment.The words microbiologists use now are that the bacteria can express different genes in different environments.That is why some bacteria can survive on the journey through our digestive tract while others do not.The term for this type of behavior was once pleomorphism. "It is the environment that determines the behavior of microorganisms" Even though the theory of pleomorphism did an excellent job of explaining observations in the world of bacteria, a choice had to be made between it and the germ theory of disease and you know which one was chosen.
My approach to microbes is to try to find a way to cooexist in peace.To do this it is necessary to understand why a microbe such as e-coli 0157:H7 would make toxins like shigella.I imagine it is sort of like learning to share the same territory with a skunk without getting sprayed.Maybe the bacteria release the shigella toxin when they feel threatened by something like an antibiotic or a chemical that is damaging to the bacteria.Like the skunk,when we suspect that e-coli 0157:H7 is around we should be careful not to frighten it and we should discover what it is that we can do to make our environment less attractive to it.Probiotics do just that.They attach themselves to the lining of our digestive tracts and don’t leave any room for the 0157:H7 to park itself.
Besides not feeding grain,regular feeding of probiotics to dairy calves seems to me to be a good way to start them off with the right community of bacteria in their digestive system.Feeding probiotics to calves is easy if you are farming on a small scale where cheesemaking and buttermaking are a part of the farm activities.The whey and buttermilk and skimmed milk(after culturing) become the probiotic feed for the calves.This was the traditional way to get the calves extra protein in their diet when they are young.
….and SLOW FOOD National Conference embraces RAW MILK in SF !!!
I just spent three days at the San Francisco SLOW FOOD Food Convention. If the demand for raw milk samples is any indication of the impending and rising interest and demand for rawmilk there will not be enough raw milk in stores next week or for months to come.
OPDC handed out about 15,000 samples and people stood ten feet deep to hear about why lactose intolerance is not associated with raw milk but caused by pasteurized milk.
Everyone seemed to be lactose intolerant even though we are told that about 30% of the populations should be LI. On day one tasters would sample OPDC raw milk and await the anticipated GI disaster….on day two more samples were taken to confirm the truth of the GI miracle and on day three the miracle became a personal triumph and raw milk was being sold faster than we could hand it out. We even sold raw milk to an FDA food inspector who said " do not measure me by my bosses". She also said that the highest level FDA people are appointed and will lose their jobs after Christmas. She drank her raw milk and said this is delicious…awesome food!!
SLOW FOOD is raw food and raw milk is the SLOWest of the FOODS.
Arnold is our next best friend. He grew up drinking raw milk.
The CA raw milk rebellion is way past the perfect storm breaking point…momentum and the truth is ours.
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News/Meetings_&_Events/
UPCOMING PUBLIC MEETINGS & EVENTS
Web Conference: NACMCF Subcommittee on Parameters for Inoculated Pack/Challenge Study Protocols (Sep 3, 2008; 3:00-5:00 p.m., Washington, DC)
* Meeting Information
* Contact Karen Thomas-Sharp for further information or to register.
* About NACMCF, the National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria for Foods
Low Dose Irradiation in Beef (Sep 18, 2008; Washington, DC)
* Meeting Agenda
* Register to Attend
* Petition Submitted by the American Meat Institute (PDF Only)
National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (Sep 22-26, 2008; Washington, DC)
* Federal Register Notice (Aug 22, 2008) | PDF
* About the Committee
-Blair
I was looking at OP’s 3/24/08 inspection reports posted on the web by Fresno County Environmental Health (a new service – you can check any of the county’s restaurants, dairies, etc):
http://www.fresnohealthinspections.org/ASP%20Pages/Main.asp
You got a relatively good score (92%), but they highlighted a correction with arrows: "remove Corid: (Amprolium) calf treatment from barn."
Corid (http://www.corid.com/) is an anti-parasitic treatment for coccidia and has a 3 day withdrawal time. Why would an organic dairy have this product in the barn? From your website:
"Our individually named cows are never given antibiotics, hormones, or GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Only organic green pasture and approved naturopathic methods are used to feed and care for the cows. Preventative, nature-based healthcare keeps the herd healthy all year."
It seems that OPDC has been accused of using conventional medicine on livestock.
Organic certified dairies use antibiotics and other disallowed medications rountinely. In fact it is required, if you do not want to be cited for cruelty to animals.
Organic standards require the treatment by all means possible to bring an animal back to full health and then that animal is sold!!
If we never treated animals we would be forced to shoot them in the head and that is not very nice…
We often treat animals that are sick prior to selling them. It is routine to sell our bulls at market. If they are sick we treat them prior to sale. Illness is not common but it does happen. No one wants a sick animal and neither do we.
We do not have stock piles of medications at OPDC but on occasion we may have an old medication bottle laying arround from treating an animal that is being sold.
Stones being thrown at glass houses? or is it just the pioneers houses.?
If you are going to throw a stone…please have the guts to use your name so everyone knows who you are…and if you think a stone will hurt OPDC, think again. We deal with champion stone throwers all the time.
We have mother natures truth and 45,000 raw milk loving moms on our side in California.
I thought we were celebrating the passage of SB 201.
Mark McAfee
It will allow the beef to have poop on it. Why are we not hearing people scream about this? oh yeah it is dead poop just as the poop in pasteurized milk is dead (most of the time).
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/What'sintheBeef.pdf
This is from 2003, where is the updated research that TPTB have done to assure that it is safe?
Maybe 50-100 acres will do.
I would take that to mean he uses them when needed and then sells the bovine. I would hope to maintain "organic" for his dairy cattle, they would not enter his milk chain.
Mark am I correct?
The issue here is that the people selling the bandaids are impairing finding out what the real culprits are, for fear they will lose their bandaid industry. Leave the briars in the playground; just don’t let the children play in it. Besides, one might fall off a slide and die, after all.
Gwen
You are correct.
If an animal can not be treated naturally it is required to be treated conventionally and then sold. That goes for all animals and even calves in an organic operation.
We never treat a milk cow with a conventional treatment and then have her remain in the herd. She would be sold.
Treatment is not that common but at OPDC it does happen. In fact I can not remember the last time we treated an animal. It has been more than a year. All treated animals are sold and never kept in the herd for milk or meat. Fewer and fewer animals need treatment over time becuase you breed the diseases and issues out of your hurd.
If we did not treat animals, the alternative is suffering or a bullet. I take the humane side of this argument.
I challenge bloggers to find something positive to say about whole unprocessed foods and your farmer.
To dissent is very American… but is distructive when over done.
Mark McAfee
Mark, this is not hard to do. The nut farmer at the Farmer’s Market sells unprocessed nuts. He and his wife are very sweet and I wonder where I’ll get my nuts when they go. As for the fruit & veggie farmers, the fish mongers, the pork farmer… they are great, when I am not in CA I miss the fabulous produce, nothing compares.