California’s campaign to rid the state of raw milk via AB 1735 smells worse than a gallon of sour pasteurized milk.
A number of readers wonder: who is the culprit? Implicit in the question is the hope that maybe we can find that one person, and somehow get them removed from influence. I wish it were that straightforward.
I spent time yesterday trying to get the California Department of Food and Agriculture and a California Assembly staff dairy consultant to answer a few real simple questions related to AB 1735.
I wanted to know from CDFA its reaction to the charge from Ronald Garthwaite of Claravale Farm that the agency had failed to alert him to the coming new standard for coliforms in raw milk. I wanted to know from the California Assembly consultant what the next steps were following up on last week’s meeting involving Organic Pastures, regulators, and legislative reps last week in Sacramento.
The CDFA sent me its press release and an FAQ(not posted) previously released, and didn’t respond to any other questions. The California Assembly consultant didn’t respond to emails or calls. Obviously, the powers that be don’t want to discuss this with someone not necessarily sympathetic to their viewpoint.
In trying to reconstruct what happened, here is what the San Francsico Chronicle stated in its original article about the legislation:
“The raw milk standard was part of AB1735, a broader measure designed to align California milk standards with federal ones. There was no public debate over the bill, nor were the two raw milk dairies in California informed in advance. The bill won routine, unanimous approval, and the governor signed it Oct. 8.
The maneuver represents latest round in a struggle between raw milk’s avid fans and government food safety and public health officials, who want all milk pasteurized.”
When the newspaper refers to the “latest round in a struggle,” I’m not sure it realizes how many rounds there have been. The fact that raw milk has been readily available via retail outlets for the last six years in California has no doubt made many consumers complacent, and obscures the reality that the state’s regulators have a long history of rabid opposition to availability of raw milk.
In his book, “The Untold Story of Milk”, Ron Schmid devotes eight pages of his book to chronicling the turbulent history of Alta Dena Dairy, owned by the three Stueve Brothers, from 1945 through 1999, when the farm stopped selling raw milk. Schmid concludes: “Ignoring all the evidence on the benefits of raw milk and the desire of many people to consume it, the California State Health Department used the possibility of occasional Salmonella contamination as an excuse to wage a vendetta against Alta Dena and California’s other raw milk producers.”
Here is how long-time raw milk advocate Aajonis Vanderplanitz recounts the history in a recent email to supporters:
Since 1972, California Department of Health Services (CDHS), California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (LACDHS) have been trying to outlaw raw milk. My first major participation in the battle was in 1978 to get a CA Senate bill passed legalizing raw milk with equal standards to pasteurized milk. The week prior to the vote, CDHS claimed that the raw milk was contaminated and issued a press release warning people of danger of death from drinking Alta Dena’s raw milk. The bill failed in the vote. One week later, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner obtained documents that proved CDHS’ accusation was contrived to kill the Senate bill. It did. The people should have sued CDHS for fraud and conspiracy.
In 1982, 1986, 1991, and 1996-2000 the battles were long, depriving us of milk for 1-2 years each time. The last major assault was 1999-2000, when LACDHS unwarrantedly raised the regulations for raw milk to the level that raw milk passed only 51% of the time. Stueve’s Natural raw milk was the only major raw-milk producer in California at the time. Stueve’s Natural had been Alta Dena Dairy. Every time Stueve’s raw milk failed the coliform tests, LACDHS did not allow Stueve’s to sell raw milk until the raw milk passed coliform counts for 10 consecutive days. The milk was sold maybe 2 weeks of every 6 weeks. That virtually bankrupt Stueve’s and they stopped producing raw milk. The law stated specifically that the department was to ensure safe raw milk, not ban or eliminate it, but they did. Boyd Clark, who managed Stueve’s could have sued but did not. LACDHS escaped its crime.
From 1997-2000, I attended every LACDHS’ Medical Milk Commission meeting for raw milk; 3 YEARS of meetings. I rallied pro-raw-milk MDs, dentists and scientists, but the commissioners were all so prejudiced against raw milk they ignored expert testimony and evidence. None of the commissioners had any experience or done any empirical research of raw milk and of those who drank it. They were not qualified to judge raw milk; they were a board of MDs with one DVM. Several of the meetings were attended by CDHS employees who were just as insistent that the regulations for raw milk continually increase until the tiny raw-milk industry was bankrupt. Stueve’s was bankrupt and stopped producing raw milk.
We had to smuggle Claravale raw milk into Los Angeles to have raw milk even though it rarely passed regulation limits for coliform. No one got sick. I took the matter to the County legislators and pushed for a bill to make raw-milk standards reasonable. Finally, the bill was introduced in November 2000. LACDHS wrote a fraudulent report stating that raw milk was dangerous and had caused deaths to children, and that their search of scientific literature did not uncover any science about raw milk benefits. They claimed that raw milk took the life of a 10-years old girl. Under investigation, it was discovered that the little girl drowned and did not drink raw milk although her family members did. Repeatedly, LACDHS has committed fraud in their zealousness to ban raw milk. Do you really think they intend to help Mark and us have raw milk?
Since I had had raw dairy experience and expertise gathered since 1969, I wrote a report. Dr. Wm Campbell Douglas, MD, an expert on raw and pasteurized dairy, gave me permission to use much of his research as well as mine and to use him as narrator, the Supplemental Report In Favor Of Raw Milk. It was concise and as thorough as necessary to show that the history of raw milk used as therapy dated back to Hippocrates.
Los Angeles County legislators reviewed the health department’s report and claims and mine from February-March 2001. The final hearing occurred on March 20, 2001. Employees from CDHS and CDC flew on taxpayers dollars to testify against raw milk. After listening to testimony, County legislators voted for equal standards of testing and regulations for both raw and pasteurized dairy. We had won the first and only major battle.
In 2001, Mark McAfee created Organic Pastures Dairy that intended to sell raw milk since we had paved the legal path.
There is no single culprit responsible for the current crisis. Rather, there is a culture within the state and federal health and agriculture establishment totally committed to eliminating raw milk from our diets, and eventually from our consciousness. History tells us the struggle ahead will be long and grueling, and victory is not assured. Mark McAfee and Ronald Garthwaite will need lots of support.
I do believe that "victory" will come about in one way or another. We will get our raw milk in some way. Yes, the struggle will be long and grueling. I do believe that we will prevail, I truely hope that the raw dairy producers don’t lose thier livelyhood in the process.
Your post points out that the "powers that be" do not know the facts, don’t want to know the facts, and/or they just don’t care or they are bought and paid for. I would bet that it is money that rules.
Should the legal battle fail, what is plan B?
I would encourage readers, particularly consumers, to pool their efforts and contribute to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund which is working to help Mark McAfee and other farmers across the country obtain the best legal assistance and to hire lawyers when and where necessary. I am on the Board of the Fund (I take no fees or compensation from the Fund), and our website is at http://www.ftcldf.org.
Thanks.
More people need to educate themselves on the distinction between "legal" and "lawful". Not that it will make any difference to those who think they have the authority to prevent you from exercising your rights, but it’s a necessary step to realizing: "Laws are made for us; we are not made for the laws."
What is legal today, may be illegal tomorrow. But what is lawful can never be made unlawful by any amount of legislation, regulation or decree.
—
And excuse me if this is something everyone knows – but is the pasteurized milk ever tested for coliform? And if so, when and where and at what stage (post-bottling, pre-bottling?) Can anyone answer this?
Thanks!
http://ag.arizona.edu/extension/dairy/pdf_files/MilkingParlorMgmtrevised.pdf
The above explains some of the counts and milking system of the larger dairies.
http://www.foodscience.cornell.edu/cals/foodsci/extension/upload/FACT-mqipvsl07.doc
2 pages with brief examples of bacteria testing
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=11976118
In the UK.
http://drinc.ucdavis.edu/dairyp/dairyp6.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=497170
Your question about CDFA testing "in the final product" is an excellent one. The new legislation makes no reference to when or where the raw milk is to be tested. So presumably the CDFA decided on the "final product" testing. Mark McAfee feels he can meet the new standard if testing is at bulk tank stage, but not if it is in final product. More on this upcoming.
As for testing pasteurized milk, Mark threatened early on to conduct such tests, since they aren’t currently done; his feeling is the results could be surprising to consumers, and embarassing to regulators.
"Consumers have reported consuming raw milk for convenience, taste preference, or perceived health benefits. Although some advocates claim health benefits from raw milk compared with pasteurized milk, including decreased risks for atherosclerosis, arthritis, and lactose intolerance, such claims are not supported by scientific evidence (8). Unsubstantiated claims of health benefits of raw milk for infants and children are particularly concerning for caregivers because infants and children are dependent on their caregivers to make safe dietary decisions for them. Sixteen of the 29 ill persons in this outbreak were aged <7 years.
Pathogens that infect humans are shed in the feces of cows, can be present in or on the udders of cows, and can contaminate their milk. Standard hygiene practices during milking can reduce but not eliminate the risk for milk contamination. In a 2001–2002 survey of Pennsylvania dairy farms, pathogenic bacteria, including Salmonella, were isolated from 13% of samples from raw-milk bulk tanks (9). Pasteurization decreases the number of pathogenic organisms, prevents transmission of pathogens, and has been determined to improve the safety of milk more than other measures, including certification of raw milk (4,5).
Farms in Pennsylvania that hold PDA raw-milk permits undergo twice-monthly milk testing for coliforms and standard plate counts and monthly testing for growth inhibitors and somatic cell counts; annual PDA inspection and culture of raw milk for Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli O157, and L. monocytogenes; and annual herd skin testing for Mycobacterium bovis and Brucella (1). Despite these measures, consumers cannot be assured that certified raw milk is free of pathogens."
Aajonis Vanderplanitz, in the above narrative, is not the first person to expose how the government blatantly fabricates information to suit their particular agenda. Considering this, I don’t believe a word of what you posted by the CDC. Don’t you see that this, too, could be fabricated information, and that you, foodsafetyguy, are just the government’s henchman?
foodsafetyguy, we’re not advocating that everyone drink raw milk (although I personally would like to see this). there is plenty of room for both the pasteurized milk drinkers and the unpasteurized milk drinkers. The unpasteurized milk drinkers have usually educated themselves fully on the benefits and risks of raw milk before consuming raw milk. What this is about, foodsafetyguy, is CHOICE.
Didn’t you post this exact post not too long ago? How "recent" is this report? And testing with pasteurized milk, it is full proof? If that were true than there would be no recalls on pasteurized dairy products. What is MMWR?
"consumers cannot be assured that certified raw milk is free of pathogens."
Neither can they be assured that pasteurized milk is free of contaminates.
Foodsafetyguy, if you wish to consume pasteurized milk, have at it. Please do not dictate what should or should not be consumed. I do not need nor require a keeper. I do not eat raw fish/sushi and I do not tell others what I believe to be a safety issue with eating raw fish. They are able to make informed decisions and I have respect for thier choices.
David, I wonder why there is not a "watchdog" group that tests food products for safety, one that is totally independent of any regulating body? I would bet the farm that the results would indeed be embarassing to regulators.
http://www.ewg.org/node/21454
http://www.ewg.org/node/8441 <~~here is a study of contaminated milk (rocket fuel), and they don’t list the milk producers name….
What you do is make it seem that raw milk has no risks. As I have stated before, I want to expose that there are risks associated with it, especially to young children.
And secondly, I am sure that there is not a mass conspiracy at the CDC to duke you out of drinking raw milk. These folks track the illnesses and report them.
And lastly, if you want to drink raw milk, I say have at it. You want no, or low standards on the milk, then that is fine with me. In fact, I say get the government out of it all together, and the public can save some tax money that goes toward maintaining the testing laboratories. But know the risks, and be cautious about giving it to children.
You warnings are unnecessary, unneeded and obviously unwanted.
Just another rehash of the Melissa/Mary diatribe.
What makes you think we don’t know the risks of drinking raw milk? No one, that I recall said there was no risks to consuming raw dairy. Does the general population realize the risks for vaccinations? Medications? For consuming additives in foods? GM foods? They are so full of hormones, it’ll take years to figure out the harm it will cause to people.
For example; Cipro, a popular antibiotic can cause spontaneous Achilles tendon rupture. I’ll bet the majority don’t know that, What’s that? You say it is "rare" Well, if it happens to you or your 70 year old mother, does that make it ok? No it doesn’t. The little pages the pharmacies give you when you fill an RX does not really inform the consumer much of anything. Spinach is another example of "risks" it was the processing that contaminated the produce, whether the processing started in the fields or in the packaging areas in a moot point, the fact that it occured is proof that there are risks involved with everything you do.
I don’t feel the cdc has my best interest in mind. I question whose pocket they are in. Many of the cdc’s facts are distorted, you can search for yourself. A good example is the declining childhood diseases in the early 1900s, before vaccinations were mandatory. Better nutrition, sanitary conditions, improved the over-all health of children.
No one said they did not want standards on any consumer products. I believe that most concur that there should be standards, basic standards, a guideline if you will, for consumer protection. We all know there are unscrupulous people out there. If there are basic standards, they should be across the board and not singling out certain producers.
The forcing of "pasteurization" of almonds is another example, If you leave any produce sitting in a field in a pile, it will, given time, fluctuating temperatures, weather, etc;start growing various bacteria. Do you think that is what happened and that is why there was …oh what was it? Salmonella or E-Coli? Well DUH! It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out to change that way of processing the almonds to avoid a repeat of that contamination. Why poison consumers with toxic substances?
There have been numerous studies on the contaminates in breast milk, amniotic fluid, other tissues of the human body, yet I don’t hear the cdc or any other govt entity informing the public. How about the mercury in fish? My my, it’s ok for pregnant women to eat the contaminated fish, go right ahead, you will be taking a huge risk in the development of your unborn child coming out "normal". Or that HPV vaccination, giving it to young girls. uh sure, ok, you give it to yours, not my child! Read all the studies on it. It is a dangerous drug and the side effects are not safe. Be sure to study the HPV also, perhaps all of the over 100 of the various strains, The vacc only is supposed to "help prevent" 4 of the strains, and most woment who get the virus don’t have complications. If there is such a surge in the incidences of the virus, perhaps studying why and the spread of it (the most common strains)would be better. Floride is another issue… It’s all a money game for big pharm and they have bought and paid for votes in our govt system.
I don’t believe that any of us has said that raw milk has NO risks. Instead, we acknowledge the risks and, as educated, informed adults, feel that we have the right to consume raw dairy fully knowing the risks.
The problem I have with the CDC, FDA, USDA, and others in the ‘system’, such as yourself, is that you continually remind us raw milk drinkers that ‘we cannot guarantee your safety when you consume raw milk,’ and that’s the diatribe you use to justify taking our rights to raw milk away. Well, the government’s not doing such a hot job of protecting the children from e-coli 0157:H7 in ground beef and spinach – why don’t you go worry about them? Raw milk poses such as SMALL risk compared to industrial ground beef. Those buying ground beef in the grocery store are really unaware of their food source compared to the raw milk drinkers, they are the real victims of the broken food system.
And actually, the CDC report you posted seems quite biased, I don’t know that I’d say that ‘they just report the facts.’ If they really wanted to protect us, they would do independent studies on the benefits of raw milk (including the beneficial bateria, which is found in healthy, grass-fed, pastured, organic dairy products, and work to strengthen our immune systems and protect us from harmful bateria). But they will never do that, because in admitting that clean, raw dairy is good, they’d have to acknowledge the reason for pasteurizing milk in the first place, and that’s because most of the milk in this country is from factory farms – confinement, BST, GMO, grain fed farms, which promote the proliferation of pathogenic organisms. As long as Big Dairy has friends in high places, this will never happen. And until you acknowledge that there is a qualitative difference in real, raw, grass-fed milk and industrial milk, you will continue to believe that the government works in our best interest.
Mary and Melissa’s writings are not aimed at you, because clearly you know the risks. They are trying to inform the less knowledgeable folks who read this raw milk propaganda and don’t consider the fact that raw milk has the potential to contain pathogens. They realize from their unfortuante experience, that raw milk has risks. And if they knew then, what they know now, they would have avoided raw milk.
Why do they come back time and again, so that some mother may see the risks, and then hoepefully will not have to go through the trials of having a very sick child.
When an adult gives raw milk to a child, that child has no choice. If you want to drink raw milk, fine. But your kid does not have the option of making their own choice based upon the knowledge of the risks.
"propaganda"? That one tiny little word you used exposes your real thoughts more than anything else you can say.
And, I do believe that the California Dept. of Ag. cleared Mark McAfee and Organic Pastures Dairy of any connection to the illnesses in Mary and Melissa’s children.
The fact that you say, "And if they knew then, what they know now, they would have avoided raw milk" means you’re just perpetuating this false information.
"propaganda"? That one tiny little word you used exposes your real thoughts more than anything else you can say.
And, I do believe that the California Dept. of Ag. cleared Mark McAfee and Organic Pastures Dairy of any connection to the illnesses in Mary and Melissa’s children.
The fact that you say, "And if they knew then, what they know now, they would have avoided raw milk" means you’re just perpetuating this false information.
Just curious, but do you post blurbs like this on pro-smoking blogs? Kids don’t have the option of making their parents stop smoking in the home, and card and we all know the risks involved in second hand smoke….
Ron Paul Speech to Congress
November 5, 2007
Madam Speaker, I rise to introduce legislation that allows the transportation and sale in interstate commerce of unpasteurized milk and milk products, as long as the milk both originates from and is shipped to States that allow the sale of unpasteurized milk and milk products. This legislation removes an unconstitutional restraint on farmers who wish to sell unpasteurized milk and milk products, and people who wish to consume unpasteurized milk and milk products.
Full post at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=973
It is the right and responsibility of the parents to decide what food and medicine their children receive. To suggest, as you have repeatedly done, that a parent is wrong to do so is the height of tyranny.
We are not slaves, the government does not own us, the government is not our parents. Government is a creation of the people and has very very limited legitimate powers (much less than it exercises now). The idea that the government owns us is the foundational principle underlying those who think the government ought to tell use what we can and can’t drink or feed our children. And it is the same foundational principle that led governments in the 20th century to think it ok to murder 262million of their own citizens. It is evil.
I’d like to keep the emphasis on how we can ensure raw milk will be made available to all, especially the children who need it the most since they are our future!
States where the sale is legal are few in number, so HB4077 as drafted won’t really help "fix" the burdensome FDA rule (interestingly, the case in the mid-80’s was brought by Public Citizen and the judge said FDA had to make a rule restricting interstate sales, but FDA went ahead and made the rule much broader than sales).
There are many more states in which herd lease/cow share private contractual arrangements are OK, and I would suggest that HB4077 should be broadened so that distribution between those states is also not prohibited by 21 CFR 1240.61. The suggested changes to HB4077 are as follows:
1) Delete the word "sale" in two places in the Preamble, and also at lines 13 and 19 on page two of the Bill, and in those four places replace the word "sale" with the following: "distribution by sale or by contracts such as herd lease, cow share or similar such arrangements" and
2) Add "or other distribution" following the word "sale" in line 18 of page two of the Bill.
I think such changes would make Representative Paul’s Bill much more helpful.
If those in support of this were to contact their representatives in Congress, we might generate enough support to get HB4077 reported favorably out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where it was sent, and then on to a floor vote. Most Representatives probably don’t understand the complexity here, but it’s a matter of choice for healthy food, which I have found makes sense with both Republicans and Democrats. The Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee is John Dingell (D-Mich) and ranking member is Joe Barton (R-Texas). Their website is http://energycommerce.house.gov and their phone number is 202.225.2927. The website lists all Committee members. Check it out, and see whom you can possibly influence to report this bill (as amended!) favorably.
Please feel free (assuming David agrees) to copy this post or portions of it (like the technical amending language) and use it as you see fit.
Thanks.
It’s better to focus on preventing any govt agency from dictating what we are allowed to eat than to keep debating the raw dairy safety/risk issue.
These highly repetitive and negative posts suck the life out of these threads and prevent us from doing the good work we are trying to do.
Rob
You made the mistake of posting opposition on this blog…..most of the people that post here cannot deal with anyone having a different opinion about Raw Milk so why even bother.????? Its so funny how everyone preaches freedom of speech, freedom of choice…yet if you dont feel EXACTLY the way they do….dont write it! Look how offended everyone gets.!!! Its hysterical….and very hypocritical….
I appreciate that David Gumpert tries to look at both sides and writes his blogs accordingly even though he definitely leans pro raw milk, which is fine.
The world is made up of differences in opinion and as the old saying says….."if you cant handle the heat…..YOU ALL KNOW THE REST.
Have a nice weekend all…..and LIGHTEN UP. Its better for your health.!!
I also suggest that ">>>>>>>>" be ignored and let’s continue on our quest for raw milk to be available to everyone and continue with the good work of sharing useful information.
Lunchmeat is much more dangerous than raw milk. So is chicken. And yet, nobody is hassling me about feeding it to my children.
foodsafetyguy, I am asking you directly, to please inform me as to WHY NOT?
TY in advance.
Gwen
Everything has the postential to become contaminated. It seems to me, that the way to decrease the potential for contamination is change the ways the animals and/or the produce are raised and processed for consumption. I do believe in a nutshell it is that simple. Realistically I know the factory farms are not going to adopt these measures. I am assuming that to do so would cut drastically into the profits.
If the battle for legal purchasing/selling of raw milk fails at the govt level, what is next? The local farmers markets? The local farmers markets appear to me, to becoming more and more popular across the US. I buy my produce at them. The quality speaks volumes. I personally rarely buy imported produce, I see no need to.
As the popularity grows with the local markets, will they be the next to be attacked, shut down? Where will it stop?