Expect the focus in California’s raw milk battle to move from the now-familiar AB 1735 to the new SB 201. (AB stands for Assembly Bill, SB for Senate Bill.) In the process, opponents of AB 1735 hope to shift the milk-safety focus from coliforms to pathogens—AB 201, titled “The Fresh Milk Act of 2008,” will eliminate the ten-coliform-per-milliliter standard and substitute twice-weekly required testing of raw milk for pathogens that can cause illness, like E.coli 0157:H7 and listeria monocytogenes.
Two state senators, Dean Florez (pictured above) and Don Perata (President, Pro Tempore of the Senate), will introduce the new legislation likely early next week, reports Sen. Florez. Mark McAfee, the owner of California’s largest raw-milk dairy, Organic Pastures Dairy Co., says that both Organic Pastures and the other significant producer of raw milk, Claravale Farm, are supporting the new legislation.
Here is how Sen. Florez explains the key features and logic behind SB 201: "For the first time in the United States, a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points or HACCP plan will be required on California ’s raw milk dairies. This type of individualized food safety plan is presently utilized by food processors in other industries in California , and was deemed to be the best alternative to promote raw milk food safety by UC Davis scientists at a recent hearing on the subject.
"The bill also provides for at least eight times more testing for E. coli 0157:H7, as each raw milk dairy is required to provide an independent lab product samples at least twice per week. There is presently no such requirement in California law. In the past, CDFA would perform simple tests that would be viewed as indicators that harmful pathogens may be present. SB 201 breaks away from these indicator tests, instead requiring CDFA to test directly for the pathogens of concern. Testing directly for pathogens provides a more accurate picture of what is contained in the final product, and allows consumers to know that the final product is free of pathogens.
"Finally, the bill prohibits raw milk dairies from receiving milk from non-raw milk dairies. This ensures that the protections put into place by SB 201 cannot be circumvented by receiving milk from a dairy not subject to these stringent requirements." This last point has been a bone of contention, as some consumers have harshly criticized Organic Pastures for using milk from an outside dairy to produce cream and colostrum.
According to Mark McAfee, “The Fresh Milk Act of 2008 is strongly supported by a broad group from both sides of the aisle." The fact that Sen. Perata is President, Pro Tempore, of the Senate, is one indication of the broad support, he said.
Mark is hopeful the new “emergency” legislation will pass by August and become law immediately upon being signed by the governor. (Legislation signed by the governor normally takes effect the following Jan. 1.) If it does, it will probably be in just the nick of time, as AB 1735 goes back into place in two weeks, with the expiration of the temporary restraining order issued by a state court judge, who refused last week to turn the order into a preliminary injunction barring enforcement until a trial could be held on its legality.
If the new legislation doesn’t pass, though, Mark paints a bleak scenario for the future of California’s raw-milk market, which is currently the most widespread of any in the country, with a variety of raw dairy products being sold at Whole Foods and other retail outlets throughout the state.
“Raw milk would become unregulated and either a cow share program of grand proportions or a black market system would evolve. The senators know this…It is impossible to deny that intensive testing of pathogens is the only way to find pathogens.”
Sen. Florez says he is "committed to giving SB 201 the full weight of my office, and I know SB 201’s bipartisan co-authors are committed to the effort as well."
But there’s a potential hitch in rushing the legislation through on an urgency basis, the senator points out: "The down side of an urgency measure is that you need a 2/3 majority, rather than a simple majority, for the bill to pass. Obviously, this creates an additional hurdle for us to get over as we move SB 201 through the Assembly."
In an effort to keep all options open, though, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed a motion in California court asking the judge in the case to reconsider his refusal to issue a preliminary injunction to replace the temporary restraining order that has been in effect the last three months, preventing enforcement of AB 1735. It argues that “a fecal coliform limitation is more appropriate given the state’s admitted concerns about coliforms of fecal origin. Second, a limitation of ten coliforms is overly stringent and not reflective of what constitutes a ‘safe’ level for raw milk intended for human consumption.” Will the judge reconsider? I tend to doubt he will suddenly declare he made the wrong decision last week.
In the meantime, I think it’s safe to say that California’s Department Food and Agriculture will resume enforcement of AB 1735, with a vengeance, when the temporary restraining order expires in two weeks. That will make the eventual vote on AB 201 very significant. CDFA hasn’t made known its position on the legislation, since its representatives refused to attend Sen. Florez’s hearings last month.
I wouldn’t be surprised if CDFA opposes it, since its real agenda seems to be ridding the state of raw milk, rather than addressing potential safety concerns. Given its opaque nature, though, we may never know for sure, or at least not until the legislature’s votes have been cast.
Yet by all appearances, Sen. Florez has creatively turned the safety issue on its head, making it a seemingly solvable issue. It would be quite a precedent if he winds up able to out-safety the regulators, to the benefit of all concerned.
Granted, I don’t know all the details in the testing processes, I would expect this to be done on a routine bases for all dairies. (Maybe not twice a week, at least on some frequent routine). Seems such a simple solution.
Ever heard that expression: if it sounds too good to be true…
Darth is thinking that it might be time to move on from government and go West. Open a private lab. How perfect, a testing program that is secret (proprietary) and under virtually no oversight. This bill has me dreaming of a bigger house and a faster car and…and, shoot, if I got caught using quick and unreliable tests, and someone becomes sick or dies, everything could be lost! Duh, not at all–the private lab is immune (my fantasy private lab wouldn’t even be subject to freedom of information requests). No concern at all: the dairyman(woman) who trusted my test results and sold the product is the one that will lose the farm (and shirt). Oh well–wouldn’t matter as long as the payment for testing arrives on time. Thanks for the great idea.
Darn, read the journal entry closer and discovered that the testing will be done by the state lab after all, not a private independent lab. Anyone have the actual link to the bill for clarification? There goes Darth’s great plan. But, no change in the comment "if it sounds too good to be true…" The state/federal tests for pathogens are more transparent in their execution, but be careful before counting on any current pathogen testing program alone to measure safety.
Darth
Before I read C2’s posts, I had one nagging question:
Are they going to add that pasteurized milk be tested also, to this bill? Shouldn’t they?
On my post…the main difference that I meant to point out relates to being transparent. The private lab results are proprietary. The government labs are open to the public (methods and results). But, I am NOT saying that the government testing programs are the answer–during an outbreak, "we" do a pretty good job because resources are directed intensely to the effort and go above and beyond (IMHO). However, for routine surveillance of 1000’s of samples/week, I would be concerned about how well these programs are working (public or private). Sure, there are hits for E. coli and Listeria, as zero tolerance examples, resulting in large ground beef and processed food recalls mostly…far surpassing raw milk recalls…but illnesses are abound despite these intensive testing programs in "big" industry.
Same comment about increasing pathogen testing in pasteurized milk. No confidence in either the private or government labs in choosing the "best" technology available (both driven by cost). If this bill is really proposing 8x more testing for raw milk, I’ll be shocked if it makes it out of appropriations ($$).
C2
If the CDFA would be performing the pathogen tests using their own labs then won’t this open the door to the same problems that raw milk-permitted farms are having with the corresponding state agencies in New York and Pennsylvania? I doubt that Autumn Valley Farms or any of the other PA and NY farms forced to issue recalls for phantom listeria monocytogenes contamination would consider that their state’s results and testing methods are open and transparent.
I think they should. Why should pasturized dairy not be required to be tested the same as raw dairy? It would show how "pathogen free" the milk is.
I had thought the "labs" had national standards that even the govt was to adhere to. But as we’ve seen, even the govt entities don’t adhere to their own standards.
OP posts his lab results for all to see. How do we know that he posts the truth? We don’t, it’s based on trust. (Just like the govt telling us drugs and processed foods are safe, etc, it is based on trust). I doubt he wants to be shut down or cause any illnesses so I would expect him to be diligent in maintaining a sanitary dairy with healthy cows to keep any "bad" bacteria at or below any designated levels.
That is true–they are more open than most industries. But, how much do you trust that testing method? Also, it didn’t seems to help in 2006 (E. coli) or 2007 (Campylobacter).
HACCP is a good program in the processing industry, more difficul on farms. But, if done correctly…food safety personnel in other industries are often required to take classes and receive extensive training in HACCP…it could be a good approach.
I think an initial period of intensive testing followed by monthly tests would make more sense for producers with consistent negative test results. Vary testing requirements in response to test results. Reward the consistent, clean producer by minimizing the requirement. But nuanced approaches are beyond the ken of most of our regulators.
I currently enjoy having to test for antibiotics every time I make a pasteurized cheese since MA has adopted that section of the federal Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. Ironically, I don’t need to do this for my raw milk cheeses. The test costs about $6 per run, and I pasteurize just about every day. Not cheap when annualized, but at least the state allows me to qualify as a state lab so that I can run these tests in-house. I have no antibiotics on my farmstead operation but would be more than happy to test if I needed to medicate an animal. Too nuanced for the regulators.
I think HACCP is for industrial-scale operations like Mark’s, not for the family farm truly producing for the immediate local market.
HACCP testing twice a week will be very expensive but the financial trade-off for OP will be in getting out of the CA milk pool which is currently costing OP something like 50K a month (for something they cannot benefit from) so that will undoubtedly go part and parcel with the new standards.
The fact that Claravale is a much smaller operation, it seems unfair to hold them to same strict standards but given the current urgency in CA and the fact that Mark M. has stated that he will rent his equipment to Claravale for their testing as well will allow for both operations’ survival.
How this plays out for the future of pasteurized milk production will be interesting; however, that is my concern – that the big commercial dairies seeing the writing on the wall (indeed, Sen. Florez said he wanted to take HACCP to them as well) will fight AB 201.
Like CDFA, the big pasteurizing dairies may see it in their interest to kill HACCP testing as a standard and therefore taking out AB 201 would be their priority (in addition to the fact that raw milk dairies are competition).
When the bill is submitted, we need to see who is listed in opposition. We also need to start framing our letters/phone calls to the committee in particular and legislators in general in favor of this bill.
you don’t know the facts.
the state itself concluded that the e. coli DNA fingerprint in the kids in 2006 was different from the DNA fingerprint from all of the over 350 feces samples collected from OPDC’s cows. besides, the e. coli found at opdc in 2006 came from cows that were not even producing milk at the time. as for the 2007 campylobacter outbreak, the state admitted that it did not cause any sickness.
get your facts straight before slamming opdc.
i’m glad you admit that haccp is a good approach.
From reading the history of Ab 1735 it was passed without the typical rule following in CA. Is this correct?
If so might this be a way of having the law declared invalid?
Please excuse my unfamiliarity with the law on this.
Rob
Amanda
I read both California state outbreak reports (E. coli, Campylobacter) on another blog, and came to a very different conclusion than yours. The links between the cases and raw milk from a single producer are relatively strong by my interpretation even without "matching" cow feces in 2006. "Matching" farm samples are not a criteria in public health to determine potential causal links–they may support other findings in an investigation, but are not an absolute requirement (in fact, most states do not go to the farms and test animals after outbreaks). Nevertheless, they did find a genetic match on the farm in cattle feces in 2007, which is interesting.
I kind of apologize for naming the farm. As a general rule, I don’t usually like to say a specific farm when discussing an outbreak. But, since these outbreaks and the farm name have been used here quite a bit (and released in media reports), I made an exception. Because this bill could have far reaching impacts if passed, it seemed important to have all the information considered including those illnesses.
Yes, HACCP could be a good tool if done right, but also agree that "one size doesn’t fit all" whether talking about big/small/raw/traditional dairies. Once something goes into law if this passes, it is hard to change as everyone knows from AB1735. And…California has been known to set trends that are later followed by the rest of the country (for example, indoor smoking bans).
C2
"Dairy A raw dairy products were highly suspect vehicles as the source of these illnesses, but further investigation to definitively implicate this product was not feasible."
This doesn’t sound to me like "the state admitted that it did not cause any sickness" unless there has been a more recent statement by the state I am not aware of.
Amanda
"From reading the history of Ab 1735 it was passed without the typical rule following in CA. Is this correct?"
Similar situations with new raw milk related laws are going on in other states and everyone is watching this closely. From various readings, it looks like that bill went through the normal process, but the "stakeholders" missed it. Should the state have made a greater effort to notify the raw milk dairies during the process? One could say it is the regulatory authority’s duty to inform everyone concerned, but not doing so maybe leads to bad relationships between those stakeholders and the regulators, but not invalidation of the new law (speaking as a lay person as I am not an authority on law making either–just doing a lot of reading on this particular topic).
Also,should the raw milk industry have had better lobbyists and tracking of bills relating to raw dairy, and discovered its existence long before the bill was signed? There are other consumer advocate groups and industries that probably would have jumped on this bill during their routine screening of leg proposals using "keywords" or other methods that "flag" their product or interest.
That what I thought. So with that can that part of the law be overturned based on the subterfuge of CDFA? Or is it just tough luck for the raw milk dairies.
I listened to Assemblywoman Nicole Parra’s strong words on the YouTube video and go back to my original comment…the technical process for a committee bill was normal since no one submitted an "opposition." The bill was not hidden–anyone doing a search on dairy issues could have found it on the California website (enter "milk" or "dairy" into the keyword line and AB1735 pops up: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html). I do these searches elsewhere on other key topics of interest to track pending legislation.
An opposition could have been submitted anytime from introduction of the bill in March until signing by the governor in October (7 months).
Y’all missed it. My bet would be that the Assemblywoman’s criticism toward the agency probably related more to the lack of communication about the controversial nature of the bill AND not alerting the 2 dairies that would be impacted. In other words, relying on them or their supporters to "find it" and oppose.
From David’s post, it sounds like SB 201, the "Fresh Milk Act of 2008," might be introduced next week. There is an option to "subscribe" to the bill and get updates on the website, Right now, SB 201 shows up as a "produce safety" bill:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_201&sess=CUR&house=B&author=florez
C2
No one said the bill was hidden.
Please reread Steve’s post
Okay, substitute the words "stealth" or "subterfuge" instead of hidden. Those words do not apply either because an opposition could have been submitted and discussed in committee, but no one sent one over. The take home lesson from my point of view (if ever in a similar situation) relates to the importance of communication between government agencies and all potential stakeholders during the legislative process. Just some thoughts…and doubting that the controversial coliform count part of that much larger bill could be overturned except through new legislation.
C2
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/agvision/
Regardless of my opinions about raw milk, the new bill will provide an opportunity for everyone to duke it out (experts, regulators, lawmakers, activists, etc.).
Setting AB1735 aside, which is hopefully what will happen with SB201, the message surely is to pay attention to what your government is doing. California is better than most states in the level of their computerization (what fun it must have been in the pre-computer, smoke-filled room days). Many other states do not approach this level of sophisticated access, and it’s truly a job to keep track of what is going on. Citizens ought not to have to hire a lobbyist to keep track of their government, but that is what it boiled down to for McAfee, even in California.
Since we agree that the decision to consume raw milk is properly a matter of choice, that choice is meaningless if it is constantly at risk from pressure by the opposition to eliminate it. We need all the help we can get.
OPDC did have the PPRM funds in late 2006 that it collected after the recall. It was something on the order of 30K and the first goal was to change California legislation. Ironically, AB 1735 was introduced just a few months after the fund drive. I don’t know what they spent the money on, but it seems clear in retrospect what they should have spent it on. It is a pretty trivial exercise to watch bills introduced in your industry. I do it for my business.
On the "consent" issue, all that means is that it had no opposition in the legislature. If it had, it would have been taken off of the consent agenda. Consent items require a unanimous vote.
Amanda
What do you suggest other than coliform standard or pathogen testing? I can’t think of anything else that would address the safety issue. How are the "pathogen" tests unproven & unreliable for raw milk? Are you referring to the tests OP uses now?
What do you suggest other than coliform standard or pathogen testing?
I’m not sure at this point, and look forward to following the "debate" among experts as the bill progresses. An effective pathogen test would be far superior to coliform counts (a crude and old method). But, does this test exist for raw milk (accurate, affordable, rapid enough for "test and hold")?
Amanda mentioned a dairy using an E. coli O157 test approved for juice, but not raw milk. That is problematic in my mind. It has been said here many times that raw milk is very different from pasteurized milk (and presumably juice). As such, it makes sense that the tests for pathogens in raw milk should be specific for the raw milk matrix and the test’s performance should be thoroughly evaluated before depending on it to prevent selling contaminated product to consumers…
C2
http://www.fresnobee.com/business/story/636242.html
i don’t believe you are aware of all the facts surrounding the introduction of ab 1735.
cdfa proposed it and sponsored it. we have documents they themselves produced that admit it. cdfa suggested to the ag. committee that ab 1735 was "necessary" to comply with federal law. well, federal law does not regulate raw milk for human consumption so that is blatantly misleading. i also understand under california law that when an agency sponsors legislation, they need to get prior approval from the governor’s office first. cdfa never got approval from the governor’s office before convincing the ag. committee to introduce the bill. cdfa also issued a press release after ab 1735 was signed by the gov, stating that "bulk" tank samples from the two dairies indicated that they could comply with the new standard. only thing is, data from one of the dairies conclusively demonstrated that it would have failed 87.3% of the time, and it would have been out of business as early as feb. ’03. so much for this legislation being "typical" or "standard."
as for the campy outbreak, read the declaration of michael payne. he admitted that the campy outbreak did not cause any illness. he also admitted that of the 80 people who contracted the campy, only 2 had consumed opdc’s milk and neither of them got sick.
people should get their facts straight before posting comments.
Resident scientist jumping in here…perhaps re-read the campy report again (no insult intended). I think you might be confusing the "surveillance" study with the actual confirmed cases identified in the cluster. Sometimes (when resources permit), the health department will conduct "active surveillance" to identify other cases that might be missed by routine ("passive") mechanisms.
In this case, most of the "background" cases in the community were ruled-out (no common food item found EXCEPT for the 8 cases). Campy is a common cause of diarrhea, so in any given month there may be dozens of illnesses in a community (versus E. coli O157 which is more rare). It’s a matter of sorting through the "background noise" and finding the ones that have things in common (whether that be raw milk, chicken, turkey, or whatever).
Bottom line: "surveillance" found 79 cases (questionnaires sent in), but only 2 had "drunk Dairy A raw milk." Theses 2 were added to the count, bringing the total to 8 illnesses "linked" to Dairy A.
From their summary:
"In December 2007, 8 persons with Campylobacter infection who reported drinking a commercially available (Dairy A) raw dairy product were identified….Dairy A raw milk or raw colostrum was a highly suspect vehicle as the source of these illnesses, but further investigation to definitively implicate this product was not feasible."
The bullets in the discussion were interesting too, but I’m not going to type them here–the full report is posted on the Marler blog with Amanda’s link:
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/
i’m not confusing anything. bottom line, the state’s expert, michael payne, said in his declaration that there was only 1 outbreak of campy associated with opdc in 2007 and then admitted that nobody got sick. read his declaration.
All of the patients were ill by the state’s case definition–culture confirmed with *illness* onsets during a defined time period. Besides, the laboratories do not test for campylobacter in healthy people without compatible symptoms–usually diarrhea (in fact, it is hard to get the docs to send in tests at all for foodborne pathogens even when people are very sick–thus our problem with "underreporting).
Could you send me the quote in the testimony by Michael Payne that you are referring to? I do not see him on that long list of names in the state report, and without a compelling reason to do otherwise…would stick to the original documentation by the agencies that conducted the investigation.
http://www.marlerblog.com/Cluster%20of%20Campylobacter%20infections(1).pdf
C2
I am sure I don’t have all of the facts surrounding Ab 1735. I just made a comment about the consent issue. The governor’s office angle is another matter and I am not aware of those details.
I am also interested in Michael Payne’s declaration. Where did he make it? It seems strange to me that his statement would "trump" the state’s actual public report. It also seems strange that he would be an authority on a health investigation.
As a consumer, the interesting thing to me from the state’s report is that the campy strain was isolated in a sick person’s stool and found at the dairy. Is that in dispute as well?
Amanda
oops…meant declaration not testimony. These things are probably linked somewhere on this site, but it is hard to go back and find them. Gary–if you could send the link and page/quote again…thanks.
IMHO, a genetic match between a patient isolate and a farm in a discrete time period with an epidemiologic link to a food product (raw milk) is quite remarkable for a bug like campylobacter (studies in multiple countries show that many different strains of this bacteria exist in nature and are constantly changing their genetic "fingerprints").
C2
I am also a bit confused about why Payne would be the state’s expert here rather than the people at Infectious Diseases who actually carried out the investigation. If you could clarify that element as well, I’d appreciate it.
Amanda
I looked back at the analysis of AB 1735 that is publicly available and am reminded that there is more to the legislation than the coliform count. It seems as if the primary justification of the coliform count portion of the legislation was the Washington and California outbreaks of 0157:H7. Was that not the core reason?
I made a request with the Assembly Ag Committee for information on AB 1735 and it was a real sleeper. If you have something more, why don’t you post it here?
By the way, if a dairy had really high coliform counts in the past (and therefore couldn’t meet the new standard as you have argued), I don’t see that as compelling evidence that the dairy *can’t* meet the standard (or at least can’t meet some reasonable standard). I see it as evidence that the milkers need to learn how to use teat dip and clean their equipment. Whether the standard is too strict is really a separate issue. It is possible that there is a case where the standard is too strict and, at the same time, some of the players need teat dip lessons.
Amanda
when i have time (which is in short supply these days) i can send you the declaration of payne. you need to contact me so i know where to send it.
that’s a good question about why the state’s expert was payne. why was the state’s "food safety" expert somebody who has never studied food? (i personally think it’s because all of their food safety experts would have admitted that coliforms is not an indicator of safety). their expert (payne) admitted that he has never conducted bacteria studies, he’s a chemical guy who studies the effect of antibiotics on cows and whether they produce antibodies that become resistant to those antibiotics. doesn’t sound like food science to me.
on another matter, our experts have said that if a person has a healthy immune system, they can ingest thousands and thousands of e. coli 0157:h7 and not get sick. that was not contradicted by the state. so you see, it isn’t really the pathogen that makes people sick, it’s the level of their immune system. that’s why raw milk is so good for a person, it improves their immune system.
also, how clean is "clean?" if a product that has 1,000 coliforms in it will not make people sick, then why require a level of only 10 coliforms? none of the state’s witnesses could quantify at what level "unclean" becomes "unsafe." without that level, any limit on coliforms becomes arbitrary. that’s what we have with ab 1735, an arbitrary limit. some people here on this blog simply refuse to believe or understand that.
I realize now that you are referring to the AB 1735 injunction case and I will find it interesting to read the transcripts. I will be fascinated to see Payne’s comments because I would have expected him to testify that there was an outbreak. Life is full of surprises, however, and it sounds like we’ll see Payne testify that no customers of "Dairy A" became sick even though the same strain of bacteria was found in the cows at "Dairy A." You questioned him, right? Thanks for the heads-up. The state report really gives an entirely different impression.
I totally agree with you on raw milk and its potential to improve the immune system. The problem is that there is some non-zero probability that the immune-depressed person will draw the Aces and Eights. What is the probability? We don’t know. That probability is certainly reduced by keeping the fecal coliform count below 1.4 million.
It is a fallacy, by the way, to argue that because all limits are arbitrary, there should be no limit. Again, I think a real good place to start is a fecal coliform limit of less than 1.4 million. I’d like to think we wouldn’t need regulators to set such a limit. From the exchanges I’ve had with small dairy farmers, it seems like they make a big effort to create a quality product.
The best idea for an arbitrary limit is that I should only write twenty five words a week on this blog.
Amanda
if payne told you that he wrote his declaration before the campy report came out then he lied. his declaration was dated 2008 right before our recent hearing, not in 2007 when the report came out. (i’m at home right now and don’t have access to all of the documents but my recollection is that his declaration was dated may something 2008).
as for a fecal coliform limit of 1.4 million, wow. are you really saying that should be the limit? i think the two dairies could meet that limit. 🙂 remember, all fecal coliforms are coliforms. if the limit was 1.4 million coliforms then that would guarantee less than 1.4 million fecal coliforms. why then is 10 coliforms an appropriate limit?!
i’m not saying there should be no limit. i’m saying that there should be a relationship between the limit that is imposed and the interest that is supposed to be protected. in this case, coliforms do not measure safety. they only measure "quality" such as smell, taste and shelf life. if "safety" is the interest to be protected, then do the study to see what is the typical number of coliforms that are present when raw milk is sold and nobody gets sick. if over the course of time raw milk is produced and nobody gets sick when the milk that is produced is produced at a level of 1,000 coliforms, then isn’t that presumptive proof that the milk is safe? in other words, if 1,000,000 gallons of raw milk is sold and consumed and nobody gets sick, and the average level of coliforms during that time is 1,000, doesn’t it make sense that the milk is safe and the appropriate level is 1,000 coliforms?
oh well.
On the fecal coliform limit, I’m saying that if that were the actual limit there would have been a bottle or two on the shelves in 2006 that would not have been in compliance. I agree, dairy farmers should be able to shoot for that. The fact that any was bottled at all with those levels should be an embarrassment to the whole community. Those are the levels that inspired the legislation and it sure must be a disappointment to "Dairy B" who now has to deal with this.
Your coliform information is interesting. It’s too bad it’s basically too late. Do you know who was on the PPRM dole? Was it you guys?
I don’t know when any particular declaration was written since I don’t have a copy. The campy report is dated in March 27, 2008:
http://www.marlerblog.com/Cluster%20of%20Campylobacter%20infections(1).pdf
The first injunction hearing was March 20. You can check the date and see if he wrote it for March 20 or May 23.
The report didn’t exist in 2007 because the outbreak ran into Dec of 2007. Perhaps you’re thinking of the 2006 e coli case. That report came out in 2007. It’s hard to keep track of all of these outbreak reports. It’s probably a bit knee-jerk to call anyone a liar until we can figure out what report was written and when.
In any case, you’ve piqued my interest about the injunction hearing. Since you slapped c2 and I for not knowing the facts before we post stuff on the Internet and since Payne is Exhibit A in your argument that "Dairy A" was not implicated in a campy outbreak in 2007, I am fascinated. I look forward to reading Payne unpack that campy case, particularly the matching strain in the cows’ stools. Quite frankly, I am surprised that he would testify differently than the information in the state report, but he does work for an independent food safety organization.
We can put this discussion on hold until then. I think I’ve used my 25 word allotment for the week.
Amanda