Every once in a while, regulators contradict themselves, or each other, publicly over raw milk issues. Even then, though, it usually ends badly for farmers.

It happened most notably in California in October 2007, when the California Department of Food and Agriculture put out contradictory information about a dairy farm’s chances of passing the 10 coliform/ml standard required in AB 1735, which had just been secretly passed by the legislature and signed into law by the governor. Indeed, the CDFA’s press release says that Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Claravale Dairy, the state’s two raw milk producers, routinely achieve less than the standard 75% of the time. But if you link to a Q&A sheet at the end of the press release, you find as further evidence of the CDFA’s contention about how easy it is to meet the standard, that only one-fourth of California dairies, and 20% of dairies nationally, pass the test. So much for a convincing argument.

It’s happened in New York, where raw dairy farmer Chuck Phippen is locked in an ongoing dispute with the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets over its zero-listeria policy, even though the FDA has published research suggesting that listeria at very low levels isn’t dangerous.

Now we are witnessing an open dispute of sorts in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania’s Department of Health has warned consumers away from raw dairy Dean Farms because some customers became ill with campylobacter. That prompted the small farm to post a desperate notice on its web site, pointing out that no pathogens were found in its milk, and noting, “These types of conditions can be especially hard on small, local businesses and even worse in today’s economy. We would appreciate you passing on any letters of support to the PA Department of Health and Agriculture.”

Perhaps the message sought by Dean Farms got through–the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture not only gave Dean Farms the all-clear, but announced as much in a press release.

Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff struck a conciliatory tone in his news release: “The owner of the farm agreed to stop selling raw milk while we tested the milk at the farm. Multiple samples have tested negative, so the farm can resume sales of raw milk.”

Another sign of conciliation, or at least honest reporting: A MarlerClark blog item first noted the discrepancy between the two agencies.

What does this mean? It seems as if the PDA has been more responsive in this case than has been its recent tradition. We don’t know if there’s some kind of internal bickering between the health and agriculture officials. But another possibility may be that at least one prominent elected official, Sen. Mike Folmer, a member of the Pennsylvania Senate’s agriculture committee (pictured above at a committee hearing), has become increasingly outspoken on the raw milk issue over the last year, prodding Wolff to ease up. I met Folmer at the CARE meeting I described in January. “I’ve been drinking raw milk for over a year now, and my cholesterol is down, my immune system is great, I feel great,” he told me then.

He was down on the PDA for its clampdown on private cooperative organizations like CARE that distribute milk to members, and the regulators’ frequent argument about protecting children. “They’re not the state’s children. They’re my children, and if you are going to use that logic, don’t let children ride in a car, because they’re in more danger there.”

It’s always difficult to read the tea leaves, but if the PDA is responding to consumer and farmer outrage over seemingly arbitrary shutdowns of raw dairies concerning questionable determinations about the presence of pathogens, then great. The glare of publicity and outrage can go a long way to mitigate the force of regulator egos and arrogance described in comments following my previous post.