The assaults on food rights disclosed Friday were especially discouraging because they came from two seemingly opposite directions.
First, there was the corporate assault, from Whole Foods. Corporations, of course, can never be trusted to keep their commitments. Whole Foods, despite all its high-sounding rhetoric about sustainability and organic food, is a large New York Stock Exchange corporation. And it took the typical corporate approach of waiting until late on a Friday afternoon to make an unpopular move, and then didn’t officially announce its action. Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. put out the word. Whole Foods clearly hoped it could get away with placing little signs by the dairy case, and that consumers would shrug their shoulders and quickly forget that Whole Foods ever carried raw milk. Now there’s talk of Whole Foods wanting some sort of national standards on raw milk. Sounds nice. Anyone want to wager how long those might take to develop?
Then there was the judicial assault in the decision against Meadowsweet Dairy, and that is, in my estimation, a more serious matter. I can remember in one of the first hearings in the Meadowsweet case in early 2008, when Gary Cox argued before a New York state judge. that the search warrant being used by agents from the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets to harass Barb and Steve Smith contained errors and was being misused. It was being used in essentially an open-ended manner, when search warrants are designed under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, affirmed in many legal decisions, to be used only under strict judicial supervision.
Got ‘em, I remember thinking. This is the Bill of Rights we’re talking about. This is the red line that no agency crosses without risking the entire case. This is one of the beauties of our system, teachers of constitutional law like to say (I’m sure Barack Obama taught this in his constitutional law classes at the University of Chicago)—that our system so respects individual rights that guilty individuals will be freed rather than abridge their rights. Indeed, judges have in the past thrown out serious criminal cases, in which the suspect is very likely guilty, because of misuse of search warrants.
So what happened when Gary Cox pointed out all the problems? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. The case was allowed to continue to its inevitable conclusion last week, with a panel of appeals court judges very nearly laughing at the notion that citizens have the right to privately contract for access to food. No, they said. The regulators make all the rules covering the transfer of food between people. Make some honey from your backyard hive to give to work colleagues? Hand out eggs from your backyard chicken coop? Make some kefir from the raw milk you bought at a licensed dairy and give it to friends? Better watch out—that’s Ag & Markets’ turf, and the regulators decide whether you can or can’t engage in such activities. We’ll see how much authority Ag & Markets grabs—it’s all there for the taking.
What’s disturbing is that our Constitution is being rendered irrelevant. Rep. Ron Paul made this argument most pointedly at last Wednesday’s lobbying day when he noted that the Congress doesn’t declare war any more, as required by the Constitution. The President just decides to fight a war, and Congress goes along. Know when we last declared war? December 1941, after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even though we’ve fought at least five wars since then, and launched numerous invasions of Caribbean/Latin American nations.
Actually, Ron Paul has been making this argument for many years. But sometimes you just have to see it up close and personal before it truly becomes real.
I’ve long thought there had to be some sort of middle ground to settle the raw milk problem, as well as other similar problems. But I’m beginning to realize that there probably isn’t a middle ground. Tyranny allows no middle ground. So long as the anti-raw-milk side has the judges, regulators, legislators, insurance companies, university professors, and medical communities on their side, why should it negotiate? Why settle when you can have everything you want? Lykke can rail about some examples of unsanitary conditions at raw dairies, but there was never any hint of illness at Meadowsweet Dairy. New York Ag & Markets and the judges didn’t care about illness. It seems as if things can never be cleaned up enough for the people in control, because sanitation isn’t part of their agenda.
And because the tyrants aren’t ever satisfied with their level of control, there isn’t really a place to hide. The emotional plague articulated so well by Richard Schwartzman is running rampant. Yes, Dave Milano, you are right to worry when they might come after you and your cow.
Certainly California and New York consumers have gotten a dose of that reality medicine. No matter where you live, the move toward tyranny will either hit you directly, as it has Barb and Steve Smith and Mark McAfee, or it will test your resolve—if you’re a Californian, are you willing now to drive an hour for your raw milk, now that the Whole Foods a couple blocks away has banned your raw milk?
There’s no easy way to fight tyranny. Yes, we can join the Tea Party movement and just throw the bums out next election. But the bureaucrats and judges will still be in place, working against freedom, and as we know, they make the key decisions.
I have to think that the most effective immediate step we as citizens and “consumers” can take is to use our economic power. I wrote a few weeks ago how a grocery chain customer can easily be worth $100,000 or $150,000 over twenty years. I guarantee you the executives at Whole Foods aren’t going to be pleased if ever greater numbers of $100,000 customers divvy up their Whole Foods business to co-ops, farmers markets, online health food and supplement suppliers, and so forth. Remember, Whole Foods stocked raw milk in California, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Connecticut not because they’re good guys, but to lure health-conscious shoppers in the expectation they would buy much more than just milk. Yes, Whole Foods took a risk, but it was a business risk designed to differentiate the chain from other chains. Now, Whole Foods has decided for whatever reasons it doesn’t want to take the business risk any longer. Well, if you get rid of a big market differentiator, you essentially become just another grocery chain, and you’ve got to put up with the consequences.
Blair McMorran puts it well: “I think this is just the beginning of a little tidal wave of change that is happening, and Whole Foods just lost their foothold on a terrific opportunity.” I hope she’s right.
On the legal side, I’m not so sure what to do. Judges are there in part to protect our rights. One of the great strengths of this country has been its willingness to respect the rights of minorities—to allow people of different beliefs to do their thing, so long as they weren’t harming outsiders. The country’s most serious problems—most notably racial relations—have come when we allowed the tyranny of the majority. It took a civil war, endless legal cases, civil disobedience, sending in soldiers, and huge protests to move toward legal respect for racial minorities.
Americans who want to consume raw milk, even via strict private financial arrangements, apart from any contact with outsiders, are being treated as if they were scam artists. It’s not unlike what went on in the South after the civil war, when the police and judges allowed the indiscriminate persecution of blacks. The only choice is to keep fighting, with more court suits, more food freedom legislation, and more lobbying. Or else move to Canada, where they seem to have at least one judge who respects the food rights of the minority.
***
Speaking of corporate creepiness, Wal-Mart is positioning itself as a supporter of locally-produced food. It got the Atlantic to write a favorable article, but you know where this story is going. Wal-Mart will do wonderful promotion, and then, when local producers are signed up and committed to filling those fast-growing orders, they’ll learn the Wal-Mart way of doing business—continually lower your prices till you become something like a conventional dairy producer, selling at or below your cost of production. A modern-day slave. My advice to small farms: read the fine print in any contracts you sign with Wal-Mart.
Michael was indeed fortunate to have this particular judge preside over his case however, there is little to differentiate in the battle for food rights between Canada and the United States.
Bill
I know of an exceptionally physically and mentally fit 87 year old man who went into hospital for surgery to have a malfunctioning heart valve repaired. The man appeared to be recovering well until he was administered an antibiotic for an apparent infection. He ended up on dialysis several hours later and eventually succumbed to kidney failure.
I dont believe I need to explain to you the effect that various drugs and chemicals have on our immune systems and kidneys etc. That being said however the ambiguity surrounding cause and affect with respect to disease and sickness can only be truly addressed via respect for the laws of nature and free will. Attempting to control natural process and a human beings free will is futile and destructive.
Outlawing ambiguities in the food industry would be a gargantuan and impractical task that would in many instances end up causing more harm then good.
I dont question your sincerity Bill I do however disagree at least in part with all six of your points in the previous post.
Ken Conrad
I would be very interested to hear what evidence you have that Sally Fallon is making "a bunch of money" from raw milk sales. It reminds me of the vegetarians who absurdly insist that the WAPF is making money on grass fed meat. Neither the foundation nor Sally is getting rich from promoting what they sincerely believe to be a healthy diet.
On my blog, the issue is addressed under the heading "The Raw Milk Wars". Wars. That is what this is…a war for out rights as given by God…so stated in the constitution.
With due respect for conciliatory efforts recently by raw milk proponents in CO, WI, and CA…wars are not won with appeasement. Neville Chamberlain proved that. Nor are they won with negotiation. Viet Nam proved that.
Wars are won with scorched earth tactics…no quarter asked or given. The civil war, WWII Europe, and WWII Pacific proved that. Japan knuckled under to the atomic bomb and nothing else, not negotiations or conciliation…period.
Are you awake yet?
Bob Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
http://www.dunnconnect.com/articles/2010/03/13/agriculture/doc4b9acff6166cb267216882.txt
A $26 billion dollar dairy industry and their pathogen red flag waving mercernaries with important sounding acronyms on their shields and swords. The fierceness of their war on raw dairy and the small producers is indeed astonishing. And they do state in the link it is all about the money.
Ken as for BMs 6 points I guess they might pass the UCC muster but I did not see where their would be any unfettered freedom of choise not sure the 6 points would pass the Constitutional muster either?
I read your points in the last posting and I agree with many of them. Number three made me laugh out loud, though. How self-interested can you get? You use fear, uncertainty and doubt as your main tools to collect money from insurance companies to make your living. There was not a shred of positive evidence that OP’s milk caused the 2006 illnesses of two children. There was ample evidence, however, that one of the mothers was an exceedingly educated consumer. Yet you used FUD to bring home the bacon in that case. I don’t call that justice.
"1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;"
Are you really too damn stupid to understand constitutional rights, or are you just smug in your belief that the country, in large part because of lawyers like you, will never again live by constitutional law?
BH
I don’t see the Whole Foods thing as a bad thing. Consumers MUST reject the grocery stores as the primary supplier of foods. They are part and parcel of the present food system that centralizes the food system, enslaves farmers, and sickens consumers. It must be replaced. We will all be much better off if the average consumer got their food direct from a farmer with the things not locally producible being imported and sold by co-ops and dry good stores.
Wrong. There is no "may" to it. That is what it WILL take…and it will happen. The extraordinary expansion of government power of the last year plus has awakened a sleeping giant. Now, we must focus that power and take the people’s country back.
And we will.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;
2. Raw milk should not be sold in grocery stores or across state lines–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well;
3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers;
4. Practices such as outsourcing (buying raw milk from farms not licensed for raw milk production) should be illegal;
5. Colostrum should be regulated as a dairy product, not a nutritional supplement;
6. Warning signs on the bottles and at point-of-purchase should be mandatory. An example: "WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes Diarrhea, Vomiting, Fever, Dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Reactive Arthritis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Miscarriage, or Death, from use of this product."
Kirsten, as for No 3 being self-serving to me, I agree with your point in part, but honestly, don’t you think that a farmer should be responsible for the injury to his or her customer, whether it is a direct consumer or a retail outlet like Whole Foods?
And, as for the Organic Pastures E. coli Outbreak in 2006, the evidence that it happened is overwhelming. See – http://www.marlerblog.com/2009/03/articles/lawyer-oped/organic-pastures-dairy-e-coli-o157h7-raw-milk-product-outbreak-2006/ – download the attachment. Also, send a FOIA to the California Department of Health and the CDC. Frankly, I would bet at this point even Mark would be willing to admit that it happened and that he is working his ass off to make sure that it never happens again. Right Mark?
I have to say that you aren’t sounding very rational here.
This massive expansion of government power is not unique to the last year. It has been happening since 2001.
re: your reference to Vietnam, perhaps I am misunderstanding you? Are you telling us that the U.S. lost Vietnam because of a conciliatory stance? So does this would mean you were in favor of further atrocities, chemical attacks, and bombing of the country?
I think the U.S. lost Vietnam because the Vietcong engaged in an asymetrical warfare, and had the popular support of the Vietnemese people against an imperialist aggressor.
This raw milk war is also an asymetrical warfare, and we are the Vietcong.
Regulation is what got us in this mess, regulation will not and can not make food safe.
There are a growing number of individuals (scientist and lay people alike) who recognize the inadequacies of the germ theory and are riled by the militaristic, tyrannical attitude that it spawns. All of your suggestions (numbers1,2,3,4,5&6,) are in essence asking me as well as those who think likewise to subject ourselves to a belief and system that we view as fundamentally flawed. This would be like asking Galileo to deny what he knew to be true for the sake of placating the powers that be.
Ken
I made two statements…that either you were too stupid to understand constitutional rights or that you were smug in your belief that such rights are forever dead. Which do you and I agree on…that you are stupid or that you are smug?
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
As for Viet Nam, my point is it was a war not fought to win…as indicated by how we were jerked around in Paris…beginning with a lot of crap about the shape of the damn table.
Politicians should decide IF we go to war, and if so, what the objective is. After that they should shut up and let the experts…the military…do what they are trained to do. Ugly as it is, the purpose of the military is to break things and kill people. That’s ugly, but that’s what war is…ugly.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
#1…no, based on rights. #2…half of it. #3 and #4 yes…if you place the same insurance requirement on every business in the country. #5 no…(same reason as #1) #6, yes with two caveats. First, your proposed lable is overreaching, and second, the same qualification I put on #3.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
PS…as for stupid vs smug, YOU are the one who said I agreed in a previous comment, and I only said those two things, so which is it? Stupid or smug…or a reading comprehension problem?
Re this:
"I gotta ask, is this debate really about small farms and the constitution, or Sally Fallon’s quest to put raw dairy in every kid/person’s stomach and make a bunch of money?"
Leave Sally Fallon alone. She is an advocate, dispensing information. The world is full of them, and we are all (supposedly) free to take their advice or not. (As I think about it, advocacy may very well be a trait shared by 100% of the population. Certainly you and I fit the mold.)
Regulators (including you?), legislators, bureaucrats, and even judges when they go astray, on the other hand, carry sticks to enforce their opinions, often at the expense of inalienable rights. In America, advocates, even wrong ones, are (supposedly) free to express their opinions. Weapon-wielding bullies are (supposedly) not allowed.
1. Here in WI the rules got changed because a new bureacrat took over @ DATCP. This puts us farmers at the mercy of the next regulator with emotional plaque that comes along.
2. I fail to see what a state line has to do with whether raw milk is safe or not.
3. Less insurance and I would guess there would be less lawyers, always a good thing.
4. Transparency is key, people need to be able to make good decisions. That being said we presently allow people to drink themselves to death.
5. I am against raw milk regulation, same goes for colostrum.
6. If the same sign appears on pasteurized milk, raw fish, conventional chicken, etc. sounds good to me.
Lastly, I was wondering if Marler would post an obit for each the 3 men who died from pastuerized dairy in Mass. in 2007. I can not find any info on them anywhere. I figure he probably has that info on file.
In principle I agree with basic standards for the production of raw milk however the issue is our fundamental liberty which is at stake. Yes Gandhi, King did provide us with tools how to bring about (with a lot of sacrifice) needed changes. Are we ready to sacrifice or are we still too afraid of loosing our belongings and material safety net simply for the right of commerce.
We better get our intentions sorted out. We will never ever win this battle on the basis of having the right to sell and make money. THIS IS ABOUT FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM which we do not have. We are launching here in Ontario the Declaration of Independence of small farmers from the regulatory scheme. Do you have the courage to be independent? Go for it ,its more worth than anything else
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2009/12/victim-profile-the-loss-of-john-powers/
Or this?
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/10/articles/legal-cases/outbreak-of-listeria-monocytogenes-infections-associated-with-pasteurized-milk-from-a-local-dairy-massachusetts-2007/
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/01/articles/case-news/third-man-confirmed-dead-from-whittier-farms-pasteurized-milk/
11GT#1) Mark McAfee’s Citizens Petition to FDA on interstate raw milk shipments is modeled on Ron Paul’s HR 778, which is still buried in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. HR 778 is intended to get FDA totally out of regulating interstate commerce in raw milk simply based on its lack of pasteurization.?
WM#2. Raw milk should not be sold …. across state lines–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well;
SB Comment: The FDA rule simply acts to prohibit movement of raw milk (and people) across arbitrary lines, and arbitrarily makes law-breakers out of those who can legally obtain raw milk in neighboring states, simply because they or their milk cross a state line. Bill’s rule is simplistic, but effective in its broad reach banning raw milk, since it ignores individuals’ rights in factually complex situations under varying state laws. It’s also just a stupid federal overlay on state laws.
11GT#2) There should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
WM6. Warning signs on the bottles and at point-of-purchase should be mandatory. An example: "WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes Diarrhea, Vomiting, Fever, Dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Reactive Arthritis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Miscarriage, or Death, from use of this product."
SB Comment: Although Bill’s warning seems overdrawn, in principle I agree with him. Warnings are cheap insurance, and might even replace insurance (see below). Besides, I don’t think those who take care concerning what they eat will be put off by such additional information.
11GT#3) Claims for health benefits may be made by any customer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of personal testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers; or by the producer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of a statistically accurate summary of unsolicited customer testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers.
WM: no comparable provision. Any problem with scientifically valid claims and customer testimonials, Bill?
??11GT#4) Sales at retail, where the consumer is likely not to know the producer, should have increased testing under state law.
WM#2. Raw milk should not be sold in grocery stores….–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well;
and
WM#1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;
SB Comment: Here, I disagree that raw milk cannot be sold at retail, since I agree that farms producing milk to be sold at retail should be inspected and tested regularly (as Bill argues should be done for on-farm sales); I agree such additional testing and inspection are required, not because an uninformed consumer might purchase raw milk by mistake (not likely, with the warnings which would be on the case and on the bottle, see 11GT#2/WM6 above), but rather because in a store the customer is remote from the farmer and unable to satisfy herself personally as to the milk’s quality, the farm’s cleanliness, practices, and ethics. I agree with Bill’s concern about driving raw milk sales underground as occurs with many of the draconian laws which totally prohibit raw milk in any way, but I draw the line at valid private arrangements such as cow shares and similar arrangements, which I do not see as black market to any degree.
?11GT#5) Transactions (whether sales, cow shares or otherwise depending on state law) direct from farmer to consumer whether on the farm or otherwise, or from farmers with herds smaller than a yearly-average [100] milking cows, should not be regulated other than by individual agreement.
[precedent for a similar exemption of raw milk, is the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (Pub. L. 91-597, 84 Stat.1620 et seq.) which exempts eggs direct farm-to-consumer or any sales from flocks of less than 3000 birds. At the state level, some states permit sales to various degrees and at the other extreme, some few prohibit all kinds of raw milk transactions; these issues will have to be dealt with at the state level.]?
WM#1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;
SB Comment: This is a bedrock disagreement. See SB comment above for 11GT#4. There is no place for state interference in transactions to obtain the food of an individual’s choice by private agreement. As discussed at great length in the Canadian Schmidt case, the state’s interest in regulating public health is absent in such arrangements, and the fundamental right to do so is inherent in our laws and way of life.
11GT#6) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.??
WM: no comparable provision. 11GT#2 (warnings), 11GT#4 (retail sales) and
11GT#5 (private agreements) all feed into this fundamental right.
11GT#7) Farmers and individuals who provide raw milk or raw milk products to "others" should have legal protection in litigation (absent reckless behavior or actual knowledge of pathogens or other significant risk factors) so long as the proper identification and warnings (as in, #2) were provided and, in the case of "others" who are minors, so long as the identification and warnings were effectively communicated to the minor’s parent or guardian prior to consumption.??
WM#3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers;
SB Comment: The simple requirement to have sufficient insurance coverage, like the power to regulate and tax, is the power to exterminate a business. I don’t choose to address Bill’s admitted conflict of interest as a plaintiff’s lawyer in this context, since he expresses facially altruistic reasons for pursuing this career. The fact of such an insurance requirement, however, could exterminate raw milk producers in volatile and potentially expensive insurance markets. There may be a place for insurance for farmers who choose to sell into retail outlets, as so amply demonstrated recently by Whole Foods (who, I predict, will find a way to satisfy their insurers, which could simply be done by agreeing to exclude raw milk claims from the insurance coverage). By arguing to set aside insurance, I don’t mean to ignore risk which after all should be what insurance covers – since the 11GT consider many aspects of risk, e.g. labeling of raw milk with warnings (#2), regulation and testing for sales at retail (#4), the ability to privately contract and waive claims in the assumption of risk (#5), the responsibility of parenting (#6), education (#8), open and collaborative public health efforts (#9), research concerning the health and other benefits of raw milk, and the disease and other risks of processed (including transgenic) foods (#10), as well as broader insurance availability for those farmers who wish to supply retail stores as well as the adoption of voluntary standards (#11).
11GT#8) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer’s advertising and sales media.?
WM: No comparable provision. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has assisted in the development and provision of raw milk production and consumer safety materials (see home page of the website at http://www.ftcldf.org). One possible form of voluntary standard might be a requirement that raw milk farmers strive toward the practices described in our production materials, and make our consumer handling safety materials available to all customers.
11GT#9) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous and neutral approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or warnings which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.?
WM: No comparable provision. I think, after nearly four years of arguing about totally incomprehensible public health statistics, there would be some appetite to work better in this area. This is tough, since many public health authorities and ag departments, even in states where raw milk is legal, have it in for raw milk in a really fundamental way (BTW: when I started out in this business three years ago, I naively felt that all we needed was clear laws and regulations; bitter experience has taught me differently, and regulators need to understand this dynamic in ongoing discussions, since the anger arising from discriminatory and heavy-handed public health investigations is a major driving force).
11GT#10) Independent research (including analyses of testimonials and other real-life evidence as well as traditional reductionist studies) should be publicly funded to examine the nutritional value, environmental impacts of production, and the acute and chronic impacts on human health from raw and traditional foods and from industrially-produced foods.
WM: No comparable provision.
??11GT#11) Broader insurance availability for producers and other risk-sharing approaches should be developed as a counterweight to regulation-by-litigation.
[Farmers might consider voluntary production standards such as various kinds of testing protocols or simply rely on many years of problem-free operation, so as to induce insurers to write policies, otherwise the insurers will want to "go automatic" and insist on compliance with various regulations which is their current typical mode. Similarly, a litigation defense which is founded in compliance with the testing protocols of a voluntary standard or in decades of trouble-free operation by simply "looking at the animals and watching what’s in the filter," should help to defend against litigation, and ultimately, to reduce litigation.]
WM#3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers;
SB Comment: see discussion at 11GT#7 above. Risk considerations are central to the 11 Great Thoughts.
Finally two of Bill’s points have no comparable provisions in the 11GT:
WM4. Practices such as outsourcing (buying raw milk from farms not licensed for raw milk production) should be illegal;
SB Comment: This makes sense, although the licensed concept built into Bill’s point gives me pause. Certainly this comment makes sense at retail, since I agree that regulation is appropriate at retail. So long as a private contract (e.g., cow share) discloses outsourcing, I can’t see the problem.
WM5. Colostrum should be regulated as a dairy product, not a nutritional supplement;
SB Comment: This also seems to make sense, although again the word regulated is more appropriate in the retail context. In the private context, people should be able to make an agreement to obtain colostrum, or whatever other raw dairy product they and the farmer agree upon. See above comment.
As usual (especially when it’s late at night), I’d like to reserve further comment after sleeping on it. But the night is still young on the west coast, so here you go, Bill. Whaddya think?
cp
Read Sun Tsu The Art of WAR.
I am with-holding comment until after tommorrows high level conference call with WF.
Right now the baby has been "accidently thrown out with the bathwater and is still up in the air". We will see what kind of landing is being prepared tomorrow. I am very hopeful and optimistic. WF CA ,management loves raw milk and want us back in the stores immediately. The WF dairy case looks so sterile with its raw milk missing…it looks just like Vons, Safeway and Costco….Walmart.
All the best,
Mark
Bill has asked for a rational discussion of his six points. In this spirit, I offer a comparison with my 11 Great Thoughts as follows, with my comments. Since they are more numerous (and older), the 11GT come first, and Bill’s are then compared in turn (note to innocent bystanders – DUCK, this is what lawyers do):
11GT#1) Mark McAfee’s Citizens Petition to FDA on interstate raw milk shipments is modeled on Ron Paul’s HR 778, which is still buried in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. HR 778 is intended to get FDA totally out of regulating interstate commerce in raw milk simply based on its lack of pasteurization. ?
WM#2. Raw milk should not be sold …. across state lines–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well;
SB Comment: The FDA rule simply acts to prohibit movement of raw milk (and people) across arbitrary lines, and arbitrarily makes law-breakers out of those who can legally obtain raw milk in neighboring states, simply because they or their milk cross a state line. Bill’s rule is simplistic, but effective in its broad reach banning raw milk, since it ignores individuals’ rights in factually complex situations under varying state laws. It’s also just a stupid federal overlay on state laws.
WM Comment: My point Steve is that the product should be manufactured and sourced locally. In my experience, the problems with higher risk foods (unpasteurized) are that they become riskier the further they get from the source (spinach outbreak is a great example). Perhaps a state line is arbitrary. I am open to another definition that limits the distance of the sale.
11GT#2) There should be some kind of consistent identification of raw milk and raw milk products coupled with standard warning language, whether basic such as current restaurant-style warnings, or more elaborate such as current California warnings.
WM6. Warning signs on the bottles and at point-of-purchase should be mandatory. An example: "WARNING: This product has not been pasteurized and may contain harmful bacteria (not limited to E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella). Pregnant women, infants, children, the elderly and persons with lowered resistance to disease (immune compromised) have the highest risk of harm, which includes Diarrhea, Vomiting, Fever, Dehydration, Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Reactive Arthritis, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Miscarriage, or Death, from use of this product."
SB Comment: Although Bill’s warning seems overdrawn, in principle I agree with him. Warnings are cheap insurance, and might even replace insurance (see below). Besides, I don’t think those who take care concerning what they eat will be put off by such additional information.
WM Comment: I have always been consistent of getting effective warnings on high-risk foods like hamburger.
11GT#3) Claims for health benefits may be made by any customer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of personal testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers; or by the producer in the producer’s advertising or sales forum only if in the form of a statistically accurate summary of unsolicited customer testimonials or peer-reviewed scientific papers.
WM: no comparable provision. Any problem with scientifically valid claims and customer testimonials, Bill?
WM Comment: I agree with you.
??11GT#4) Sales at retail, where the consumer is likely not to know the producer, should have increased testing under state law.
WM#2. Raw milk should not be sold in grocery stores….–the risks of mass production and transportation are too great; the risk of a casual purchase by someone misunderstanding the risks is too great, as well;
and
WM#1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;
SB Comment: Here, I disagree that raw milk cannot be sold at retail, since I agree that farms producing milk to be sold at retail should be inspected and tested regularly (as Bill argues should be done for on-farm sales); I agree such additional testing and inspection are required, not because an uninformed consumer might purchase raw milk by mistake (not likely, with the warnings which would be on the case and on the bottle, see 11GT#2/WM6 above), but rather because in a store the customer is remote from the farmer and unable to satisfy herself personally as to the milk’s quality, the farm’s cleanliness, practices, and ethics. I agree with Bill’s concern about driving raw milk sales underground as occurs with many of the draconian laws which totally prohibit raw milk in any way, but I draw the line at valid private arrangements such as cow shares and similar arrangements, which I do not see as black market to any degree.
WM Comment: My goal is to allow sales of a product that is as safe as possible. I think I would concede that retail sales and oversight is working in states like WA and CA. My preference, however, is for direct farmer to consumer sales with regulation and inspection.
?11GT#5) Transactions (whether sales, cow shares or otherwise depending on state law) direct from farmer to consumer whether on the farm or otherwise, or from farmers with herds smaller than a yearly-average [100] milking cows, should not be regulated other than by individual agreement. [precedent for a similar exemption of raw milk, is the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (Pub. L. 91-597, 84 Stat.1620 et seq.) which exempts eggs direct farm-to-consumer or any sales from flocks of less than 3000 birds. At the state level, some states permit sales to various degrees and at the other extreme, some few prohibit all kinds of raw milk transactions; these issues will have to be dealt with at the state level.]?
WM#1. Raw milk should be sold only on farms that are certified by the state and inspected and tested regularly. Make ambiguous black market milk/cheese sales and "pet food sales" meant for human consumption clearly illegal;
SB Comment: This is a bedrock disagreement. See SB comment above for 11GT#4. There is no place for state interference in transactions to obtain the food of an individual’s choice by private agreement. As discussed at great length in the Canadian Schmidt case, the state’s interest in regulating public health is absent in such arrangements, and the fundamental right to do so is inherent in our laws and way of life.
WM Comment: I believe that raw milk sales need inspection and regulation in whatever form they take. Clearly, the more individual the transaction, the less rational basis for local or state involvement. Perhaps, this is where education for farmer and consumer might well work better.
11GT#6) Parents are free to feed their children whatever foods they choose.??
WM: no comparable provision. 11GT#2 (warnings), 11GT#4 (retail sales) and
11GT#5 (private agreements) all feed into this fundamental right.
WM Comment: I cannot disagree with you here either. I think education is the key here. You may not like it, but that is why I have put up the videos so people are clear what the risks are.
11GT#7) Farmers and individuals who provide raw milk or raw milk products to "others" should have legal protection in litigation (absent reckless behavior or actual knowledge of pathogens or other significant risk factors) so long as the proper identification and warnings (as in, #2) were provided and, in the case of "others" who are minors, so long as the identification and warnings were effectively communicated to the minor’s parent or guardian prior to consumption.??
WM#3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers;
SB Comment: The simple requirement to have sufficient insurance coverage, like the power to regulate and tax, is the power to exterminate a business. I don’t choose to address Bill’s admitted conflict of interest as a plaintiff’s lawyer in this context, since he expresses facially altruistic reasons for pursuing this career. The fact of such an insurance requirement, however, could exterminate raw milk producers in volatile and potentially expensive insurance markets. There may be a place for insurance for farmers who choose to sell into retail outlets, as so amply demonstrated recently by Whole Foods (who, I predict, will find a way to satisfy their insurers, which could simply be done by agreeing to exclude raw milk claims from the insurance coverage). By arguing to set aside insurance, I don’t mean to ignore risk which after all should be what insurance covers – since the 11GT consider many aspects of risk, e.g. labeling of raw milk with warnings (#2), regulation and testing for sales at retail (#4), the ability to privately contract and waive claims in the assumption of risk (#5), the responsibility of parenting (#6), education (#8), open and collaborative public health efforts (#9), research concerning the health and other benefits of raw milk, and the disease and other risks of processed (including transgenic) foods (#10), as well as broader insurance availability for those farmers who wish to supply retail stores as well as the adoption of voluntary standards (#11).
WM Comment: Raw Milk should be treated the same as any other food product. A farmer and retailer can do what Cargill and ConAgra do all the time blame the consumer for misusing the product or understanding the risks. If farmers do not have insurance they put their assets at risk and make it unlikely that they will be able to sell the product at retail. If you want to forego insurance, the risk to the farmer is greater, not less.
11GT#8) Educational materials (directed to both producers and consumers) for the safe production, handling and processing of raw milk and raw milk products should be developed and widely distributed generally and in the producer’s advertising and sales media.?
WM: No comparable provision. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has assisted in the development and provision of raw milk production and consumer safety materials (see home page of the website at http://www.ftcldf.org). One possible form of voluntary standard might be a requirement that raw milk farmers strive toward the practices described in our production materials, and make our consumer handling safety materials available to all customers.
WM Comment: I agree more education to farmers and consumers is better.
11GT#9) An open, collaborative, transparent and scientifically rigorous and neutral approach should be taken by producers, consumers and public health officials in all instances of disease outbreak with a common commitment both to protect public health and to protect continued viability of responsible producers. Public health warnings which are not connected to outbreaks of illness or warnings which prove to have been unfounded, shall be followed by public health advisory followups which are communicated with the same level and extent of publicity as the initial warning, including exoneration of producers as appropriate.?
WM: No comparable provision. I think, after nearly four years of arguing about totally incomprehensible public health statistics, there would be some appetite to work better in this area. This is tough, since many public health authorities and ag departments, even in states where raw milk is legal, have it in for raw milk in a really fundamental way (BTW: when I started out in this business three years ago, I naively felt that all we needed was clear laws and regulations; bitter experience has taught me differently, and regulators need to understand this dynamic in ongoing discussions, since the anger arising from discriminatory and heavy-handed public health investigations is a major driving force).
WM Comment: Steve, you sound like many of the lawyers from Cargill, ConAgra, etc that I spend most of my time with. It seems that everyone under the scrutiny of an outbreak investigation always tries to deflect blame. I can tell you that in every raw milk case I have reviewed, the public health entities that did the investigation did a fair job and the results were in fact accurate. I think if the raw milk community stopped denying the existence of the outbreaks and learned from the experiences, regulators and lawyers, would be far more accomidating.
11GT#10) Independent research (including analyses of testimonials and other real-life evidence as well as traditional reductionist studies) should be publicly funded to examine the nutritional value, environmental impacts of production, and the acute and chronic impacts on human health from raw and traditional foods and from industrially-produced foods.
WM: No comparable provision.
WM Comment: The more open and valid information the better.
??11GT#11) Broader insurance availability for producers and other risk-sharing approaches should be developed as a counterweight to regulation-by-litigation.
[Farmers might consider voluntary production standards such as various kinds of testing protocols or simply rely on many years of problem-free operation, so as to induce insurers to write policies, otherwise the insurers will want to "go automatic" and insist on compliance with various regulations which is their current typical mode. Similarly, a litigation defense which is founded in compliance with the testing protocols of a voluntary standard or in decades of trouble-free operation by simply "looking at the animals and watching what’s in the filter," should help to defend against litigation, and ultimately, to reduce litigation.]
WM#3. Farms should be required to have insurance coverage sufficient to cover reasonable damages to their customers;
SB Comment: see discussion at 11GT#7 above. Risk considerations are central to the 11 Great Thoughts.
WM Comment: For me, all products should be treated the same. Like hamburger, sprouts, spinach, a farmer, manufacturer, retailer has the ability to blame the consumer for their illness.
Finally two of Bill’s points have no comparable provisions in the 11GT:
WM4. Practices such as outsourcing (buying raw milk from farms not licensed for raw milk production) should be illegal;
SB Comment: This makes sense, although the licensed concept built into Bill’s point gives me pause. Certainly this comment makes sense at retail, since I agree that regulation is appropriate at retail. So long as a private contract (e.g., cow share) discloses outsourcing, I can’t see the problem.
WM Comment: My point here is simply that the consumer has a right to know what they are buying.
WM5. Colostrum should be regulated as a dairy product, not a nutritional supplement;
SB Comment: This also seems to make sense, although again the word regulated is more appropriate in the retail context. In the private context, people should be able to make an agreement to obtain colostrum, or whatever other raw dairy product they and the farmer agree upon. See above comment.
WM: As they saw, the devil is in the details.
As usual (especially when it’s late at night), I’d like to reserve further comment after sleeping on it. But the night is still young on the west coast, so here you go, Bill. Whaddya think?
I think this was productive. Thanks Steve.
A farmer owns a cow [thats questionable these days] I purchase his real fresh milk a very simple act that has been done for thousands of years. Nothing wrong with that in the past thats is.
But its the 21 century now and we have big AG and big lawyers.
RIGHT and WRONG no longer exist it has been replaced with LEGAL and ILLEGAL.
One can be severly harmed thru legal means and one may be severely punished for an illegal transgression that harmed no one.
Something is very WRONG or to be PC maybe I should say something is very ILLEGAL???
Don, the 11GT were my own attempt, over a year ago, to sort out the various issues that I’d seen floating on this blog. I recognize it’s a blizzard of words, but the thought is to try to see where the areas of agreement and disagreement may lie, as well as to help those unfamiliar with the subject to come up to speed in a more organized way.
I would like to touch on a couple of Bill Marler’s responses:
1. Thanks for acknowledging that a state line is arbitrary. I agree about local foods being safer (and healthier and better for the environment), but I think that’s something that should come from the market and not from regulation.
2. Bill Marler’s "preference" is for on-farm sales only. That presumes that you know better than I do what I should buy and where I should buy it. Yes, if I buy something in a grocery store, I acknowledge that it’s a public place and should fall under the scrutiny of public regulation. I hope that we all can come to some agreement about what those standards should be.
However, private transactions – cow/herdshares, on-farm sales, etc. – should be outside the jurisdiction of regulation.
3. "WM Comment: Raw Milk should be treated the same as any other food product."
"WM Comment: My point here is simply that the consumer has a right to know what they are buying."
I agree with both of these points! Rights and responsibilities cut both ways on this issue, for everyone.
I live in Georgia, 30-40 miles from Tennessee, but about 300 miles from where I was raised in Valdosta, Georgia. "Buy local" is incompatible with buying instate in Valdosta, but is doable if I cross a state line into Tennessee. Using a state line is just another way to exert control.
Using state lines to regulate is simply another way to avoid the issue of what is constitutionally allowed regarding regulation of nutrition choice. Just one more straw man.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
We don’t work for them. They work for US.
As for me and my farmer I just want TPTB totally out of our simple private "business" transaction I don’t want to pay for insurance or testing or inspections I want my farmer to keep that money instead. For all the benefits I have received from his products his compensation should be on a par with MDs and lawyers. And contrary to a recent charge Pennsylvania raw dairy farmers that I know with cow dung on their shoes and cow dung on their hands that I count it an honor to shake are not getting rich thats nonsense!
If farmers and their customers want insurance coverage "germ" protection ect. thats fine with me thats their choise. But I would hope and expect that they would not force their religious [the bad germ theory] system on me and my farmer.
As I have stated before my wife and I have now a total of 10 years on Medicare and cost the taxpayer ZERO. We also have a total of 10 years on lots and lots of raw dairy.
I would hope their are others that mighty speak up and tell their good news health stories for surely we are not the only ones?
On the other hand, good solid science, peer reviewed, is fine. You know…that good solid science that produced the russian roulette comparison to raw dairy by either Sheehan or his minions….solid science like that.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
Our Medicare cost again ZERO ZILCH to the taxpayer. What is the taxpayer cost for our friends maybe $1 million? I do not know just a guess.
My point and intent is to show the great difference between our health and that of our peers. The difference in our health and theirs is the same as the difference between NIGHT and DAY. I do feel very sorry for them because they do not want to hear about real food from the farm and think we are more than a bit nutty.
BH
Gumpart said and Gumpart said. Seems like the young lady miss-spelled Davids name. Short article on his lastest presentation.
I could not disagree more…..raw milk when produced and tested properly should be available;
On the farm
At the farmers market
At buyers clubs
At the corner store
At any and all stores
When raw milk is properly done it is safe….when raw milk is properly bottled on the farm and a tamper evident seal is applied to the top of the bottle….it does not care where it is opened next. Safe on the farm and safe on a store shelf…this is exactly the same.
Bill, you are so far from correct. You are dead wrong. On farm sales are just a method to keep the public from having access to this wonderful and healing food.
It is so hard for anyone living outside of a state that sells raw milk legally on a store shelf to have a well developed opinion about raw milk….if you live in CA, PA or WA then you can speak about retail sales…if not then hold your water. Bill you should know better.
If raw milk is safe on the farm….then with a sealed cap it is safe anywhere.
Mark
A local food store in Downeast Maine was raided by a USDA minion and product (local raw milk and grass fed beef) pulled from the shelves for this reason – labeling did not state the product was made in the USA. Product in question has a farm name and address located in Maine on the label. Um . . . if the USDA minion does not understand that "Maine" is actually a state of the US . . . then this USDA minion is as dumb as a rock.
Note this is another angle these bureaucrats have now thought they can fight our local producers. They are sorely wrong.
Our raw milk and local milk producers are now making inroads on the PTB in the milk industry (HOOD for instance). They are beginning to play dirty and we as consumers are willing to fight for our rights and are ever vigiliant.
Bill Marler – do you have any problems with raw dairy in Maine . . . . it is legal here and it seems we have never had a health problem even though raw milk can be sold at the retail level. All of our raw dairy is "grass/pasture based". We buy our milk directly from the farms (have a choice between a mixed herd and a herd of purebred jerseys:)) Our local foodshed is thriving but I now think the PTB are getting a little scared,
i think david’s point in this post is that "our Constitution is being rendered irrelevant." i agree, it is being rendered irrelevant by the bureaucrats, by the legislators and by the judiciary. in other words, it is being eroded by our government, state and federal. and what is perverse in all of this is that they are using our taxpayers’ dollars to do it.
revolution? maybe so. the war for independence, the women’s suffrage movement, the civil rights movement, the home school movement, etc. all movements start with people and by god in this movement there are many people. we can’t lose because we are in the right, just as all of those other movements were in the right. just as they prevailed, we will prevail.
as a famous, stubborn, hard nosed, determined yankee once said who eventually prevailed after four long years, "lick ’em tomorrow though."
Conference call with WF today…here is is:
Wholefoods says that they "will have a national raw milk food safety standard in place for all states in less than two months".
We are unclear what that may mean or what those standards may include. They report that they have a special team working full time on this project.
As requested:
1. OPDC has submitted our complete ( WF audited in 2008 ) fully functioning RAMP food safety plan to the Raw Milk Standards Team at Wholefoods.
2. OPDC has also increased its liability insurance policy as requested by WF.
OPDC is adding many more independent stores in areas of California that are only served by Wholefood stores and then augmenting delivery routes to increase deliveries to twice per week to assure freshness and adequate inventories.
We will not ever strand or abandon our consumers and or our local store partners.
We feel for you and hear you!! We are here for you and your family.
Mark
Mark, what exactly is your RAMP safety model? Can you please describe it?
cp
Don’t mistake my comment for agreement on the others. #1 is a method from control and enslavement and entirely unappropriated in a free society. If by that you mean what method for safety? Well you were close in your comments to Steve on education but what you propose cannot accomplish it.
If they ‘injure their customer’ the customer has the same recourse they always have regardless of the status of insurance. But mandating insurance is just another mob protection racket.
Steve’s Great Point #7 is the only reasonable approach and the one taken in many other areas of life. When people knowingly engage in risky behavior they themselves bear the consequences, especially in cases like there where much of the cause is under the person’s control and out of the farmers control.
This is RAMP….thank you for asking…
HACCP verses RAMP
Food Safety Programs in Contrast
HACCP ( Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points ) food safety programs were developed by NASA in the 1960s to assure that food taken to space did not contain Physical, Chemical or Biologic elements that were not intended to be in them. HACCP is a buzz word used by industry and FDA regulators as their gold standard for sterilized or safe food. HACCP almost always contains a kill step or five log reduction of risk at least on the biologic side of risk. HACCP is a fairly technical method of checks and rechecks to document and confirm that in fact the system is working and if not, why. If there is a HACCP failure to make sure it gets fixed quickly and reject the bad product. Not a bad idea if your goal is sterile food. What is being found now is that bacteria are able to evolve, adapt and over-come five log reduction kill steps like pasteurization etc. What is missing in HACCP is an appreciation for the chemistry of the food or environments of an attempted sterile processing protocol that invites bad bugs ( Ecoli 0157H7, Listeria and Salmonella especially ). This occurs with quaternary ammonia use and other residual surface active sanitizers as well has reliance on heat as a kill step. HACCP creates bad bugs and superbug survivors.
But what if the goal is not a sterilized but a living whole food? RAMP was developed taking the best concepts from HACCP then incorporating the powers of mother natures biology and chemistry and using modern pathogen testing technology to verify the results.
HACCP does not work reliably and in fact has serious flaws:
First of all, HACCP generally does not appreciate or include food chemistry into the equation. Dr. Ron Hull when assisting OPDC in development of our RAMP ( Risk Analysis Management Program ) Food Safety Program in 2007, explained that chemistry is essential to the development of the origins of bad bugs to begin with. If the food chemistry and or biology does not invite or allow bad bugs then bad bugs will not be there. The biology or chemistry must be right for bad bugs to grow. No inviting terrain no bad bugs.
Secondly, we have testing technology now available to test for bad bugs and or the conditions that allow bad bugs to grow or even start.
Thirdly, HACCP disregards the essential most important kill step of all. The human immune system. In America today, the Human ability to do battle with bad bugs or even strange to the body foreign or new bugs is very poor. In fact tens of thousands of people every year die from infections due to these emerging superbugs. It is thought by many scientists that many of these pathogens are a direct result of these HACCP kill step conditions and or antibiotic use in society. Bacteria simply want to live and if challenged they try their best to survive and fight another day. These surviving bacterial fighters have learned from the last battles and simply are stronger, faster and better at the next showdown with a kill step or other challenge. At least 80% of the human immune system is made up of the biodiversity of beneficial bacteria in the human gut. RAMP allows this last and final human immune biologic control system to be fortified and strengthened. RAMP safely incorporates the consumer into the Food Safety equation. RAMP does not create new superbugs and creates strong humans. RAMP is a food safety program that will take us all to a better and higher place.
HACCP is a kill everything ( at least a five log reduction of bacteria level- Pasteurized, Irradiated, UV Exposed ) food safety approach. RAMP is a risk identification, risk reduction, testing, documentation, grow good things approach that integrates the consumer. In RAMP, the consumer of a the living food is allowed to exercise its immune system by consumption of biodiversity. This exposure to clean yet alive and living biodiversity then allows the human immune system to function properly and not become more and more distanced from stressors that can sicken humans. RAMP is a design for the future and it works well for all in the food chain.
At OPDC RAMP is simple and it is an everyday Raw Milk Dairymens road map on how to get your work done safely. RAMP is designed to analyze all significant risk entry points and conditions and either by SSOP ( Standardized Sanitary Operating Protocol ) or CCPs ( Critical Control Point ) then document, test and minimize these risks. One of the things that was discovered at OPDC was that when Kefir is bottled in the raw milk filler, the very strong pro-biotic Kefir bacteria cultured the filler and the filling room in the creamery. This culturing and lack of attempted sterilization would not allow the establishment of pseudomonass or their next in line bad relatives, the Listeria family, from establishing themselves. The OPDC plant was so filled with beneficial lactic acid producing bacteria that chemistry and biology became an effective control. This chemistry is hard at work as part of RAMP. At OPDC we are clean but never sterile for a reason. We want our cracks and crevices to have friends in them not dangerous pathogens ready and waiting to enter finished end products and make people sick. Our creamery has a living immune system just as our pastures and cows have a living immune system all recognized and supported by RAMP.
At OPDC, RAMP was developed by Mark McAfee , Dr. Ron Hull PhD and Dr. Ted Beals MD in 2008 in response to ( CA Senator D. Florez ) SB 201 legislation that eventually was vetoed by the governor. OPDC decided to voluntarily implement RAMP on its own and it has been our working daily road map to food safety ever since. RAMP is not hard.but it takes effort and the dairy must want to do it. It does not sit on the shelf and collect dust. It works as hard as we do and it is our map to quality and safety. It is one of the reasons that OPDC is able to reliably assure good tasting and very safe products every day.for every one. RAMP as been a very good tool to effectively address the extremely tight raw milk standards in CA. Everyone sleeps better at night, even the regulators. Our state of CA CDFA test results have never been better or more consistent. RAMP answers our questions when ever we need to answer a quality or safety problem. It is our plan. Plan your work and work your plan and you will have success.
Every dairy will have its own risk factors and all RAMP programs will be a little different.
One thing always stays the same in every RAMP program.the end objective:
Zero pathogens, great flavor and consistently low bacteria counts.
Take the RAMP to a higher and better place beyond HACCP Kill Steps, resistant bacteria, harsh expensive chemicals and their resulting weakened human immune systems.
RAMP is about working with nature and capitalizing on her strengths. RAMP is about having nature on your side and in the end making humans healthier and stronger through safe living foods.
OPDC RAMP was developed by:
Mark McAfee, Founder OPDC & retired EMT-Paramedic, medical educator
Dr. Ron Hull PhD
Dr. Ted Beals MD
Mark McAfee is the owner and founder of OPDC and was certified in HACCP at Chapman University in 1997. He was the first American farmer to earn his HACCP certification and apply its principals as part of the McAfee Apple Gardens Odwalla restorative apple production program. From 1997 to 2001 all Odwalla apple juice containers were labeled with the McAfee Apple Gardens food safety program and organic methods story. Lynn Sherr with 20-20 News interviewed Mark after he was awarded and recognized as best of the west fruit grower for the development of HACCP Food Safety programs for US fruit growers.
Dr. Ted Beals MD is an expert on laboratory science having been the chief of the VA Administration Labs. He is also a medical doctor, researcher and participant in the Michigan Fresh Milk Working group. Dr. Beals has performed various studies on raw milk and its dramatic reduction of incidence of lactose intolerance.
Dr. Ron Hull PhD is a professor of food science and biology in Australia. He has worked in the dairy industry all around the world and has developed on farm food safety programs for the dairies in Australia as part of the national standards for milk production. He also has consulted on food safety program development and chemistry issues in Denmark for Christian Hansen pro-biotics.