The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund is asking a federal judge to intervene and halt three separate efforts to enforce the ban on interstate raw milk shipments.
The organization has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It made the filing with Judge Mark Bennett, who is presiding over the case the FTCLDF filed nearly two years ago, challenging the ban on interstate raw milk shipments on behalf of eight plaintiffs who obtain milk in states where it is allowed, and transport it back to states where it is banned.
The FTCLDF is asking Judge Bennett to intervene based largely on two cases that have received much attention–one in which the FDA is trying to obtain a permanent injunction on out-of-state raw milk shipments from the farm owned by Pennsylvania Amish farmer Dan Allgyer; the other involves a federal grand jury investigation of Richard Hebron, a Michigan farmer who is being investigated for bringing milk from Indiana to Michigan food club members. (The investigation by the same grand jury of Indiana farmer David Hochstetler has been at least temporarily halted.)
Then there is a third case, which hasn’t been previously disclosed. According to the FTCLDF’s brief, it involves “a consumer member of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (“FTCLDF”) who resides in Northern Virginia (and) is using her home as a drop off location for raw milk that is being purchased in Pennsylvania from another Amish farmer (not Mr. Allgyer) who is being investigated by FDA.” The complaint indicates that both the Virginia consumer and a FTCLDF lawyer had conversations with an FDA investigator earlier in December to confirm that the investigation involves the interstate shipment of raw milk.
The request for a preliminary injunction rests on the possibility that the original FTCLDF case might be decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
The brief argues: “Clearly, if this Court decides that Plaintiffs’ arguments are correct, then all three of the FDA cases mentioned above would be inconsistent with this Court’s decision. If this Court decides that Plaintiffs’ arguments are correct, then none of the three individuals who are mentioned above could be prosecuted for engaging in the same conduct that the Plaintiffs themselves are engaged in.”
The FTCLDF brief suggests that the three could be unfairly penalized as a result. “To allow FDA to continue to conduct investigations, bring civil actions and possible criminal actions against citizens who are engaged in conduct that has yet to be declared illegal would be for FDA to usurp the jurisdiction of this Court to decide what is and what is not legal conduct. In effect, if FDA is not enjoined, innocent individuals could be fined, imprisoned or enjoined for engaging in activities that this Court finds are lawful.”
We should know within several weeks whether the judge is persuaded by the FTCLDF’s intriguing argument. The FDA has 15 days to answer the request, and then the judge should rule shortly after that.
***
Painful as it has been, the debate about the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) has overall been a positive exercise, in my view. Better to get a number of important matters on the table sooner rather than later.
The biggest issue seems to be how to reconcile food safety standards between private access of food directly from farmers and the public system involving retail sales or officially sanctioned/permitted farm-based sales. Somehow we need to preserve (or get back, in many cases) the right to buy food privately from farmers without government interference, and at the same time, reassure the public/legislators/regulators that we are serious about food safety.
As I indicated in my previous post, I thought Michael Schmidt put it very well in his recent interview on the Bovine, speaking about the private segment: “We have allowed a bureaucracy to get out of control and expect that we simply can remove ourselves from the system to evade the dictatorial powers, (which) does not work.”
I’m wondering ever more if the best approach isn’t voluntary standards for raw milk, which those in the public or private spheres will be free to adopt or not adopt. Those who adopt these standards can alert consumers, who will increasingly seek out those providing the necessary information about their products. This will also be reassuring the “bureaucracy” out there that producers are serious about safety.
RAWMI could have an important role, if it can figure out a way to develop standards so that producers and consumers truly have a say in what they are, and how they will be used. That comes back to process–what exact steps will RAWMI follow to ensure that everyone who wants gets a say? So far, RAWMI hasn’t gotten its arms around answering that question. It’s still early in the game, and there is still time for RAWMI to recover.
Nutritionist Marion Nestle predicts that corporate powers will trump all in this election year. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/12/looking-ahead-food-politics-in-2012/ No surprise, really. It is interesting that she notes, "The FDA will (still) be playing catch-up on food safety. The FDA got through the 2011 appropriations process with an increase of about $50 million for its inspection needs. This is better than nothing but nowhere near what it needs to carry out its food safety mandates. The FDA currently inspects less than 2 percent of imported food shipments and 5 percent of domestic production facilities. The overwhelming nature of the task requires FDA to set priorities. Small producers think these priorities are misplaced. Is the FDA going after them because they are easier targets than industrial producers whose products have been responsible for some of the more deadly outbreaks? Time will tell."
The public-private issue is going to be different in every state. Wisconsin already has private sales under WI Statute 97.24 — the "incidental sale" on the farm where the milk is produced. Our challenge here is legalizing sales to the general public, and trying to get more people of my generation into dairy farming and cheese making.
In a state such as Ohio, where herdshares are tacitly tolerated by the government (for now, anyways… that could always change), the line between private and public is different.
If the libertarian/proprietarian activists seek to constructively address the issue of herdshares in a state like Wisconsin, they are going to need to be laser-focused on the issue of corporate personhood and corporate ownership structures, and how this affects the court system's view of the line between public and private. Is an LLC really a private arrangement? I would maintain it is not, and it seems that the courts agree with me. Most businesses that operate as an LLC, though they are privately owned, are subject to the same laws and regulations that affect publicly traded corporations.
This is just the fact of the matter, like it or not. Facts have a way of sabotaging ideology.
Personally, I would have a very hard time supporting any effort which seeks to completely remove food production from the public sphere. "Dietary privacy" sounds nice in theory, but in societies where healthy eating is more common place than in modern America, sharing a meal and breaking bread with friends and family is part of the culinary tradition. I believe that the French call this "commensalism", which means "at the table together."
People with different political ideologies, and who support different political candidates, need to learn to do just this — sit down at the table of brotherhood, instead of fighting amongst ourselves. I admit that I have been guilty of the infighting too. But I think we all have a lot to learn from each other and from history. Political candidates are passing fads, but food and people are here to stay.
And so would I, as corporations are a privilege created and granted by the state. See also the legions of those misguided souls who swear they are "independent contractors" when in fact they are nothing of the kind. If you want your rights, then claim them, exercise them, and defend them — along with your responsibilities.
You are getting yourself tangled up again in this notion of "corporate personhood and corporate ownership structures" because one weirdo WI judge alluded to it, without providing any kind of resolution. Remember, herdshares were sanctioned in Michigan (by the state attorney general, as part of the settlement of the Richard Hebron case in 2006) and in Ohio (by a state judge who ruled essentially that the state was inconsistent in trying to penalize herdshares). In Colorado, they were sanctioned by the legislature. In California and Massachusetts, they are being opposed by the regulators who say their power trumps any right of private arrangements. Similar thing with buying clubs. No mention in any of these places about "corporate personhood" or LLCs.
The private sphere for food doesn't necessarily equate with privilege. It has much more to do with community as it's unfolding in many places…including Wisconsin…and for that reason is arousing a great deal of emotion.
David
"Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote Barack Obama advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil. …the anger [Paul] inspires comes not from his positions, but from the tensions that modern American liberals bear within their own worldview. Ron Pauls candidacy is a mirror held up in front of the face of Americas Democratic Party and its progressive wing, and the image that is reflected is an ugly one; more to the point, its one they do not want to see because it so violently conflicts with their desired self-perception."
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/singleton/
Mark,
Hey friend. I am trying to reconcile your statements about RAWMI's purpose, with Rawmi's allocation of resources (believe your only full time employee is a lobbyist) and correspondence we have received about RAWMI. For instance,
This is Mark's statement from an email,
Let me be clear.RAWMI is not currently lobbying for any new laws on raw milk. However, RAWMI is supporting several long standing local raw milk initiatives. One good example is the raw milk bill in Minnesota that simply decriminalizes the transport of raw milk to a place off the farm so that it can be delivered closer to the farmers consumer.
***
WAPF email,
RAWMI is making great strides in the regulatory and law-making communities. For example, Stacy Pearson, RAWMIs Vice President, has been meeting with the California Department of Food and Agriculture to define a legal herd-share that will be exempt from regulation!
As a result, she has been asked to work with the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture on their raw milk legislation. She has been working feverishly with WAPF chapter leaders in New Jersey in preparations for their raw milk hearing next week. She has connected with the Maine Congresswoman offering the Local Food, Farms & Jobs Act.
In Minnesota, legislators are lined up to carry the new RAWMI raw milk access bill and RAWMI is meeting with their activists to coordinate a Raw Milk Day at the Capitol.
***
This email from WAPF makes it appear that pretty much all RAWMI is doing currently publicly is related to raw milk legislation and regulation.
Look forward to your response and the input of others, especially anyone from the states involved.
RAWMI is limited by it's IRS charter in it's ability to lobby. Only a small minority of it's efforts can be lobby related. In my email, I was overly exerberant in my reporting of efforts in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Stacy is from Minnesota, so naturally she had easy connections back home and was eager to keep the raw milk bill going….even though she now works for RAWMI.
RAWMI is focussed on the basics. In 2012 RAWMI will be focussed on Educational efforts to help farmers that want a food safety plan, and Common Standards that make sense for those that need and want them. This is Our highest priority. RAWMI will be avoiding the high profile and disruptive activism process. Instead RAWMI will embrace the farmers that have reached out to us…for assistance. Webinars, our newsletter and foundational work will become evident soon. RAWMI will be known for it's work…and track record. As farmers find it to be sound tool then more will use it.
From my experience in reading extensively about raw milk, visiting raw milk farms, and listening to a wide variety of viewpoints, I can see benefits to supporting at least two levels of raw milk accessibility.
1) The foundation should be small to medium sized farms that either operate herd shares or sell and distribute directly to consumers. These farms need little or no regulation in my opinion because if they want to stay in business, they have to please their customers and cannot afford to provide an inferior product. At this level, the scale of risk is small because each individual farm has a relatively small consumer base. Voluntary certification would likely work well for these operations and their customers.
2) I would also like to see support for medium to large operations that maintain pastured herds that are primarily or exclusively grass-fed and can potentially supply retail sales of clean raw milk for large markets. At this level, the scale of risk is large, certification is critical, and regulation is inevitable. However, the regulation needs to be realistic and efficient for the goal of minimizing health risk without incurring unnecessary burdensome costs.
I'm hoping that RAWMI will be able to support both of these levels of operation as much as possible. The political climate is different in every state, so the efforts need to be customized and optimized to seek the greatest benefit for the least expenditure. I believe both of these levels of operation are mutually beneficial and can work together well to satisfy the full range of customer demands.
I'm afraid we are stuck with the industrial food supply system that has been built over the last 50 years by consumers voting with their dollars to buy cheap convenient food that tastes good, even though it may not necessarily be healthy. The best we can hope is to maintain an alternative local and direct farm to family food supply, including raw milk, for those who want it. I'm encouraged that a lot more people seem to be voting with dollars to support farmers markets, raw milk, organic, non-GMO, and local food production. We need to encourage this trend, though I don't ever expect it to return to what it was a 100 years ago. Too many people will continue to buy cheap convenient low-quality food for us ever to end the dominance of the now well established industrial food supply system. Our best hope is to carve and keep a strong and viable though likely niche market.
"I'm afraid we are stuck with the industrial food supply system that has been built over the last 50 years by consumers voting with their dollars to buy cheap convenient food that tastes good, even though it may not necessarily be healthy. The best we can hope is to maintain an alternative local and direct farm to family food supply, including raw milk, for those who want it. I'm encouraged that a lot more people seem to be voting with dollars to support farmers markets, raw milk, organic, non-GMO, and local food production. We need to encourage this trend, though I don't ever expect it to return to what it was a 100 years ago. Too many people will continue to buy cheap convenient low-quality food for us ever to end the dominance of the now well established industrial food supply system. Our best hope is to carve and keep a strong and viable though likely niche market."
Niche is the key now . . . but we need to get it mainstream again . . . yes! we can have the same local foodsheds that we had 100 years ago . . . it may take a few years but it is doable with us forcing our lawmakers to scale back regulatory burden on small farmers . . .send it back to our local counties and towns where we ORIGINALLY had control of our food up until the 1930's and 40's . . . and before our small farms and home based food processors were decimated with the advent of big government via USDA and FDA regulations . . . .there seems to be a movement back to the small family farm that the ESTABLISHMENT in BIG AG . . . is feeling some loss of market share . . .they are getting scared . . .
So be it . . . . we need to keep educating everyone about benefits of our local foodsheds . . . teach people how to cook again . . . in High Schools . . . and farmers out there you need to be an outreach for this movement to take off . . .get involved with your communities and schools. . . it needs to start with us and our current consumers who are our cheerleaders . . . . .
Happy New Year!!!
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
Mark,
If you and your experts analyze the outbreaks from 2010-2011, which ones do you think as a group, theoretically, could have been prevented if the not yet published RAWMI standards were in place?
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/PDFs/Dairy-Outbreak-Table.pdf
Also, do you think (speculate) that the lawsuit linked in the last thread could have been prevented if the dairy had followed proposed RAWMI standards vs. state standards already in place in Washington?
MW
You have a great question. Would RAWMI type standards have helped avoid the recalls and illnesses listed on the chart linked?? I do not know….no one does. That is the honest answer.
But…that said, when a food safety plan is initiated and a broad based assessment of possible risks is assessed, the farmers priorities change. More testing is performed, more thought is given to risks and risk management. Things get cleaner, systems get evaluated, things get measured. What gets measured gets done.
Many of the recalls and illnesses noted on your link are related to pasteurized products or cheeses. This really helps us all appreciate that pasteurization is not the "cure all" that the FDA has said that it is….
There are risks to drinking raw milk and there are certainly risks to not drinking raw milk. The risk of a weak immune system can be fatal. Raw milk is perhaps the strongest immune food on planet earth right next to raw colostrum.
In the case of OPDC, our recent recall has forced a deep review of our RAMP food safety plan. We have made some very significant improvements and our bacteria counts are lower are more consistent than ever before. It is a matter of learning and fine tuning. We have absolutely no intention of leaving the raw milk market….we do have every intention of becoming better and better.
Happy New Year!
Thanks for responding. Your transparency is appreciated. Perhaps I'm stretching, but some would very much like to support RAWMI if the outcome was reducing foodborne illnesses. You have some talented people on board.
In a perfect 2012 world, the ideal would be to learn from outbreaks (vs. denying or hiding findings), whether talking about raw milk, leafy greens, sprouts, or ground beef.
Your attempt to find the root cause of raw milk outbreaks is commendable.
MW
All is not so simple. All last year and all summer, all indicators pointed to A-OK on food safety at OPDC. Then comes along a serious Quarantine and Recall that lasts 30 days.
We own this recall….it is ours. We have learned from it and become fanatically detail oriented and have made both small adjustments, and big adjustments and process refinements. Our udder cleaning protocol has been changed and it is now nothing less than a white glove test.
We do not consider the regulatory standards for CA Raw Milk to be good enough. We test 14 times per week for SPC and Coliforms. We go far beyond state law to reduce the chances of illness to the lowest possible levels. CDFA tests 1 time…we test 56 times each month.
There are risks to eating…there are risks to drinking raw milk. There are risks to not drinking raw milk. A depressed immune system coupled with super bugs kills tens of thousands each year…
Yes…I did say KILLS TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS EACH YEAR. Not illnesses…. we are talking about permantent death.
There is a serious risk for not drinking raw milk and building immunity.
Your words are interesting, We own this recall….it is ours. We have learned from it and become fanatically detail oriented and have made both small adjustments, and big adjustments and process refinements. Our udder cleaning protocol has been changed and it is now nothing less than a white glove test.
This was not your response to the 2006 recall, so it makes me wonder if you have been told they found the matching fingerprint in the cow manure. The rest of us wont know until the report is released. The 2006 report was released in February of 2007.
Do you drink pasteurized milk now?
Kevin
click on television then click on the bottle where it says shake for the ad…
Marietta, I hadn't seen the ad, but found it on line….they are pathetic indeed. I guess all their "real" scientists don't know that unadulterated milk separates…keep the public duped and they'll never know.
go with your own initial advice : quit responding to that viper who attached herself to you. You only feed her pain body, MM and her ilk are no friends of the Campaign For REAL MILK. … if they've proven anything, it's that the way they serve their god is by fomenting pain in others.
you only have so much time and energy = spend it doing what you do so well = making lemonade out of the lemons. . Leave the sourpusses to wallow in their obsession with feces
It is our observation, that there are two camps ( at least ) in the raw milk movement. Those that appear to want legalized access to raw milk and change of laws, and those that want decriminalization of raw milk with no government regulation or intrusion what so ever.
It appears that the loudest voices amoung these two groups is the decriminalization group.
RAWMI is a grass roots organization and is responsive to all in the movement. Our primary objective is building access to safe raw milk. That means cows shares or legalized raw milk. Each location and state has its own local needs and political agenda.
RAWMI has taken steps to change its momentum and focus. We have focussed more on farmer training, standards and webinars and less on anything political.
Bill Anderson has resigned as a Director at RAWMI and has taken a position on the RAWMI Executive Advisory Counsel. His cheese making expertise is invaluable and we thank him for his service to RAWMI as a director.
RAWMI will now operate with a volunteer and part time staff and focus its financial resources on webinars, standards development and farmer training. It will be a slower course but a more methodical and sustainable course.
We look forward to serving the entire raw milk community….regardless of the camp they sit in. RAWMI has something for all farmers and all consumers. Access to safe raw milk is a universal need and must not be just for the well connected or those that can drive 40 miles to their farmer. However, RAWMI will only go where it is invited and wanted. We will use our resources to serve those that want to be served.
All the best,
Mark
I don't believe that any think raw milk should be "just for the well connected or those that can drive 40 miles to their farmer". I also don't believe that any had issues with teaching safety standards, ie; cleanliness, etc.
The issues appeared to be the forced unknown standards, not including all the farmers voices (only a select few were privy), speaking with the govt without the farmers included. They were totally alienated.
It would be sad to see raw milk become no different than "organic"- you have to research the farm you buy it from to know if they truly are organic, and which definition of organic they use.
Of the farmers who've posted here and who I've spoken to in Ca, Va,Tx and Ar they have no wish to get bigger than they are. Small heardshares-less than 50 head. They know they alone cannot feed the masses, they are only able to do what they are doing currently (without the govt trying to shut them down).
Arkansas calls it self the "Natural State" yet prohibits sales of raw cows milk….go figure, you have to go to Mo,OK, Tn or Tx to get it. La out laws raw milk.
and those that want decriminalization of raw milk with no government regulation or intrusion what so ever.
What we want is decriminalization of raw milk with no government regulation or intrusion what so ever IN DIRECT FARMER TO CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS. None of us is advocating getting rid of Claravales or OPDC or any other public raw milk dairy. Just no regs or interference in direct farmer to customer trade. A restoration of a million tiny totally unregulated farms providing raw milk to their communities. That has been normal human practice for millennia.
I dont know if you wrote that knowingly as a polemic or you really didnt understand our position, but that kind of statement tends to makes some of us wary. Youve got our email addresses. Please communicate with us.
Yours for real food freedom,
Deborah
If the consumption of raw milk is not a criminal act and if those that choose to purchase the product are not considered criminals, then why is the farmer who sells the product considered a criminal?
If the consumer wishes to purchase and consume raw milk that is subject to government standards and regulation, then so be it. For those however who wish to have a personal relationship with their farmer and purchase their milk on that basis then so be it as well.
No one should be considered a criminal for selling a natural whole food.
Ken Conrad