IMG_1581.JPGOn the flight from San Francisco back to Boston last evening, I had written a further update about the California Senate’s hearing on raw milk—about how Mark McAfee has been on the phone nearly non-stop lobbying on behalf of the changes to AB1735 that I described in my previous two posts. And that the proposed changes seem to be attracting important support, with the California governor’s office understood to have signed on, along with the experts at the University of California at Davis, who had testified about the dangers of raw milk.

So encouraging has the news been that Mark is talking about a possible delay in the court hearing scheduled for April 25 to determine whether or not to extend the temporary restraining order granted last month to prevent implementation of AB1735.

Then I read Dave Milano’s comment on my previous post—in particular, his comment, “Mark is certainly a better representative than the CDFA in that regard, but this is supposed to be about ALL the people”—and I decided to step back and start the post over.

The way I see it, there are four primary parties in the California raw milk dispute. First, there’s the California Department of Food and Agriculture, which initiated the current predicament late last year by secretly pushing through AB1735, which was designed to cripple the state’s raw milk market. This past week, the agency refused to go out into the daylight to express itself in Tuesday’s hearing.

Then there’s Mark McAfee, who got completely riled up after learning about AB1735 and launched something approaching a one-man lobbying effort to overturn AB1735. He pushed a hearing in the Assembly in January, and when that went nowhere, he helped manufacture Tuesday’s Senate hearing. (He’s in the group photo of raw milk supporters pictured above outside the capital building in Sacramento, prior to the hearing.)

Mark got the third party in this drama, much smaller raw dairy producer Claravale Farm, involved. But Ron Garthwaite and Collette Cassidy, the owners, have a much different outlook on raw milk than Mark, I learned in a visit with them. While Mark wants to expand and deliver the raw milk message as widely as possible, Ron and Collette simply want to farm in the tradition of 1927, when Claravale was launched as a dairy under its original owner. Ron and Collette stayed under the radar for ten years, until AB1735 emerged, at which time they determined their existence was in danger and decided to join in supporting Mark’s effort. But they haven’t relished it the way Mark has, and Ron even decided not to attend Tuesday’s hearing, in part because he was so turned off by the results of the Assembly hearing in January.

The fourth party is Sen. Dean Florez. He’d like to be California’s next lieutenant governor, and making an outspoken group of food activists happy in America’s most food-conscious state isn’t a bad way to win points. But at the same time, he doesn’t want to alienate the germophobes.

So what’s happened is that Mark and Sen. Florez have essentially teamed up to re-write AB1735. Left on the sidelines are the CDFA and Claravale’s owners, Ron and Collette.

Now obviously I’ve simplified things, but back to Dave Milano’s comment, he raises an important point in objecting to the new OPDC/Florez alliance. The new rules may work well for Mark, and give Sen. Florez some electoral points. But the new rules may not work so well for Ron and Collette, who didn’t sign up for highly formal HACCP-type management of their dairy. The new rules may also intimidate other small dairies from entering the California raw milk market. Perhaps most worrisome, the new rules could be misused by CDFA—after all, isn’t using and misusings regulation what bureaucrats are trained to do, and hasn’t CDFA done it before?

But where does all this leave us? It seems as if the question being asked is whether you work within the system—as limiting and even corrupt as it may be—and possibly settle for the lesser of two evils, or you hold out for complete victory, as Bob Hayles advocates. When you immerse yourself into the system, as I did over the last few days, you inevitably find yourself caught up in the process, and identifying “victory” as the best deal you can get. Because if you don’t, your connection into the system, Sen. Florez, is likely to back off. He’ll take a small risk to gain a few points, but there is no way he’ll risk his entire political career to gain a few points. And the judge who issued the temporary restraining order may back off as well, when the state’s attorney general explains that OPDC and Claravale turned their backs on a legislative “solution.”

Bottom line, this is a classic lesson in the workings of our political system. Those who become most seriously engaged, and can deliver something (usually money or votes), get to write the rules.

This isn’t to say you can’t fight for further changes to adjust the raw milk (and other) rules down the road. Money and/or votes, along with a willingness to stay engaged, will likely determine success.

Maybe another way of saying this is that if Mark hadn’t become seriously engaged, he wouldn’t be on the inside looking out, and the CDFA on the outside, looking in.

*** 

It’s not surprising that the mainstream media didn’t bother to cover the California Senate’s raw milk hearing. Oh, wait, there was one bit of coverage, from the Fresno Bee, about the fact that one of the consumer witnesses nursed her child for a brief time while testifying. As always, the media get at the issues that matter most. And you wonder why America’s old-line newspapers are headed for extinction?

There are some informative re-caps of the hearing—from Amanda Rose at Ethicurean and from the Organic Pastures site.