Lots of tricky raw milk info to make sense out of.
First, I’ll start with the hot info, about settlement discussions in the case of Family Farms Cooperative and Richard Hebron, reported in today’s Ann Arbor News (and commented on by several readers following my most recent posting).
I have been following this situation since shortly after the sting operation last Oct. 13, and in the last few weeks, I have been in frequent contact with several of the principal players. They had asked me to hold off on writing anything because the case has been moving through several sensitive stages, and they didn’t want a possible settlement to be compromised by publicity.
The article in the Ann Arbor paper has put the whole matter in the public forum, though, and it may actually be misleading in certain respects. So, I’ll try to set the record straight as much as I can, without compromising the discussions currently ongoing.
First, my sense of the situation is that the settlement talks are moving more smoothly than the Ann Arbor article lets on. I am led to believe that the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) has indicated a willingness to drop some of its original demands, though I’m not sure which ones they are. But they’re enough to give all parties hope that a reasonable agreement can be struck.
Second, it’s important to understand that the reason settlement talks are being held at all is that county prosecutors in Cass and Washtenaw counties have been reluctant to file criminal charges against Richard Hebron. They have essentially put the onus on the MDA to come to a settlement and get them out from under the embarrassment of having to go after a hard-working and honest farmer.
Third, it appears that cow-share agreements are not targeted by the MDA, and thus will continue to be permitted.
Finally, it’s necessary to remember that even if a reasonable settlement is arrived at between MDA and FFC/Hebron, there is still that prickly little matter of the federal Food and Drug Administration’s warning letter to David Hochstetler, the Indiana farmer who supplies FFC with its raw milk. That letter warns Hochstetler against interstate shipments of raw milk. FFC has been in discussions with the FDA about the warning letter, and has submitted extensive legal arguments requesting that the federal agency re-consider. The FDA isn’t known for its swift responses (it took three months to reply to Michigan Sen. Carl Levin’s questions about the Hebron case), so it could be a while before we know what’s happening. My point here is that a satisfactory settlement in Michigan doesn’t necessarily mean a happy ending in this case.
* * *
I suspected there were enough mathematicians among readers to make sense of the debate in Maryland about sickness from raw milk, and I was right (see my most recent posting). The comments helped open my eyes about how figures can be twisted and turned. I can appreciate Melissa Herzog’s viewpoint, though as I’ve stated before, and as Ken reiterates, it’s dangerous to make policy based on a few dramatic situations. I also appreciate that there are weaknesses in the data extrapolated by the author of the Maryland article, but unfortunately, data about the number of raw milk drinkers is difficult to come by, as is reliable information about the number of confirmed illnesses.
I think what opened my eyes, though, is the fact a lot of people are definitely drinking raw milk in California, with few serious problems. Yes, the serious problems have been very serious, as we’ve learned on this blog. It’s also important to keep in mind that large-scale consumption of raw milk is a recent phenomenon (since pasteurization took hold in the early and middle twentieth century). That’s all the more reason to keep learning from the experiences of Organic Pastures and other farmers.
Recent Comments