I am fortunate that I have a few raw milk buying options. I spend a fair amount of time in New Hampshire, and there I have a favorite farm where I can buy wonderful milk from a farmer who carefully tends to several grass-fed guernseys. The milk is very creamy and often lasts up to three weeks in my fridge before it begins souring. (The farm isn’t permitted, but is subject to irregular state sanitation inspections; the farmer is on a first-name basis with the state veterinarian.) Unfortunately, it’s an hour-and-a-half round trip to get the milk, and often it’s difficult to make the time in a busy schedule.
Over the last two years, a couple of much larger dairies have satisfied state requirements and gained access for their raw milk to several supermarket outlets (California style). So when I am short of time, or just lazy, I can drive 20 minutes, and while shopping for various staples, pick up a half gallon or gallon of raw milk.
I have to say that I feel funny about buying the supermarket raw milk. I am uncomfortable about the fact that I don’t know the farmer, and thus know almost nothing about the farm where the milk is produced. I can tell that the milk isn’t as high quality as my farmer-supplied milk. It doesn’t taste as good, doesn’t have as much cream, and it begins tasting sour within a week of purchase.
I also feel funny about not being as loyal a private buyer as I would like from the farmer. But I do pay a price–sometimes the farmer has milk for me, and sometimes, when I call in advance, I’m told there won’t be enough, since the regulars have to be served first. What’s fair is fair.
Still…I highly value having the option of being able to obtain my milk from the farm or from the store. To me, the raw-milk-quality-difference isn’t unlike it is for other foods–those items produced in large quantity for supermarket distribution generally aren’t of the same quality as items only available at the farm.
I guess where I’m going with this is to agree with many of those who commented following my previous post that it’s going to be very difficult for the Raw Milk Institute to represent the needs of both the private and the public raw milk marketplaces.
My sense is that RAWMI’s founders and its board members (including this one) failed badly to anticipate the divergent requirements.
It’s not just the requirements of the large, Organic-Pastures-type dairy that operates in a highly regulated marketplace, versus the small dairy that serves herdshare members or operates under state regulations to sell directly to customers who visit the farm. It’s local versus mass market. It’s private versus public. It’s community-based versus general market. It’s unrated versus nationally standardized.
All these differences need to be anticipated and planned for by a new organization with as ambitious an agenda RAWMI. Lots of people on this blog anticipated the differences, but they tended to be minimized by us folks involved with RAWMI. I know my reaction was that RAWMI should be given a chance to do its thing. I just never anticipated how complicated it would be to do its “thing”…or even fully articulated exactly what its “thing” was going to be.
To those who see conspiracies at the root of the problems, I’d say no. I believe all the people involved in trying to further particular agendas are sincere and committed. Stacy Pearson wrote me to explain how hard she had tried to work with the local Minnesota raw milk proponents. I believe her. I believe she has had the best of intentions. I also believe the Minnesota grass roots people have good intentions.
But the bottom line is that RAWMI faces profound differences in philosophy. And I am increasingly coming to believe that RAWMI can’t serve all agendas–most specifically, the private vs public approaches. The private side still has work to do to articulate its agenda and approach to handling oversight (its own or from outsiders).
Right now, by trying to be all things to all groups, RAWMI runs the risk of losing the trust of too many people in all arenas. If there is one thing raw milk proponents everywhere have had difficulty doing, it has been to establish trusting relationships with any outsiders. For good reason. Politicians lie. Regulators are unpredictable. Big business manipulates.
Right now, there is a major trust gap between RAWMI and much of the rest of the raw milk world. Can it be repaired? I don’t know. But I do know that RAWMI would be wise to go back to the drawing board, regroup, assess it mission, get feedback from the marketplace of farmers and consumers, and above all, listen to what the marketplace is saying. Even then, it may not be the right mechanism at the right place at the right time.
***
The raw milk issue sometimes symbolizes the divisions that occur in academia between sustainable agriculture supporters and Big Ag, which provides financial support to many universities.
Those divisions tend to stay buried, like much associated with the power and influence of Big Ag. But a new article in a publication put out by Rutgers University in New Jersey brings some of the differences to light. The article is about a Rutgers professor who supports raw milk (and a contributor to this blog), Joseph Heckman, and the opposition he has experienced among at least some of his colleagues. I’m impressed that a university publication would take on the topic, and come at it pretty fairly.
***
The New American has a good re-cap of the controversy over Amish farmer Daniel Allgyer’s run-in with the feds. He relies on info from this blog.
The publication also has a level-headed assessment of the controversy around Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, concerning supposedly racist remarks he made in the 1990s (being brought up now as Paul shows rising strength in Republican primary states). I like the part about a neo-conservative coming down on Paul for advising anti-government militia: ““Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” That, of course, is the engraved-in-stone quote from a Minuteman commander to the rebels in Lexington, MA, in 1775.
***
Finally, I am proud to say I was named to the Food Safety News “Naughty” list for 2011. Even prouder that Canadian raw dairyman Michael Schmidt was named to the same list.
I am encouraged that the “naughty” citations were done without derision. FSN criticized me for saying that “we are at war” over food rights (though it allowed, “…he makes sensible points about the regulation of raw milk, relative to other risky foods.”) Michael Schmidt was designated “naughty” for engaging in a 37-day hunger strike over food rights. I certainly stand by my “war” metaphor, and I know Michael is proud of his brave action.
The below is for the sometimes/havebeens:
This statement says it all… 100% why I was doubtful about Rawmi from the start, and why I've become ever more resistant as plans unfolded over time.
I do NOT want my fresh milk to become "standardized." Worse, even initially-lax standards tend to evolve and become ever more complicated and restrictive until small farmers are forced to quit.
Standardization is one reason why American nutrition is in such a horrendously poor state: Fruits and vegetables must fit a certain size or shape… with resulting loss of flavor and nutrition as they evolved to fit those standards; cream is stripped from commercial milk and then precisely added back to 4%, 2% and 1% levels. Both examples of standardization at its worst… with the most profit accruing to processor and the least benefit to customer; and now the nation's food supply is concentrated in relatively few corporations because small farmers were driven out when they could not possibly compete with the expense and losses of such restrictive standards.
Rawmi was initially trumpeted as a source of info, help and training for all fresh milk providers, and as such I was willing to give it a chance. But exposure of the huge size of its future buildings and Mark and Bill's constant expounding of plans, and currying for official favor, revealed their true ambition for Rawmi…. as a way to allow and certify commercial dairies to convert to raw milk. That's where the real profit lies, not with us little bitty folks.
I could not see any benefit for small farmers to join, and decided I did not want anything to do with it… especially when M&B started denigrating the doubtful and questioning as backward, dirty and afraid of exposure.
Truly disgusting behavior, considering they both praised the very same small farmers the years before they thought of Rawmi.
Let's not forget that Rawesome was infiltrated for a full year before they were busted, undoubtedly by "sincere and committed" individuals that look just like you and me.
Let's not forget that McAfee's father was pardoned by Robert Kennedy himself for going to Cuba. If that were you or me we'd have gone to jail. "Pardons" are reserved for those who work for the CIA, as a way to keep their agents out of federal prison for their "crimes".
I have it on good authority that WAPF has already been infiltrated (actually, it was built from the ground up that way). Sound crazy? Research their lobbying history, especially in regards to NAIS – "By their fruits you shall know them".
This may cause there to be less of a freak-out response when raw milk is mentioned. It will become less of a hot item that seems to justify drastic regulatory actions like swat teams killing cows and regulators confiscating entire cheese operations, all with dubious justification in terms of scientific evidence. That much is a good thing. What we need to keep our eyes on is what traditional food is about, why it is important, and why liberty is necessary and foundational for traditional food to retain it's value and meaning.
Michael Pollan talks about his search for some source of pure information on diet that is not clouded by the marketing efforts of the food (and drug) industry. He struggles with where a person could find a source of knowledge about what is actually good for us to eat that is based on some kind of trial and error. He recognizes that the scientific community is funded by food and drug companies, so they are not reliable. He ends up reaching back in an effort to reach the evolutionary knowledge that allowed people like us to survive and be as healthy as possible. He figures that this was available from some one like perhaps our grand mothers or great grandmothers, people who were not exposed to so much industrial marketing about food, since the food industry was largely in the hands of many many small producers.
What leads Pollan to this conclusion is the recognition that the food industry, the food, medical and agricultural industry scientists who work in and do research in this area, and the regulators in the government who base their decisions on that science, and the lobbyists who influence legislators and regulators are all either paid for or overwhelmingly influenced by the food industry, which is so distant from the people who eat the food it produces that it has no incentive except profit, and there is no input into the system that is accountable to what we, the consumers, the people who eat this food really want. The disconnect between what we believe is good for us, and what the industry regards as profitable is aptly symbolized by the SWAT teams killing cows and regulators confiscation of entire small businesses' annual output.
When it becomes necessary to wage a very expensive political and public relations campaign across the entire country to get regulators to recognize one traditional food item, raw milk, it is clear that regulation by the government is a huge impediment to the evolution of our diet, unless you have the financial and political resources of someone who is in the 0.01%. Doesn't seem American to me. Certainly not government by The People. To me this is feudalism. We are becoming surfs. Each of us need to be able to chose our own food, and who produces our food, and how they do it. This feature of humanity is so basic it is something we have in common with animals. It is fundamental to life and how life has maintained itself on this planet. To let one government decide these things for us is putting all our evolutionary eggs in one basket. I'm sure Darwin would not approve!
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/blame-the-untreated-flour-in-cookie-dough-for-making-you-sick/250185/
The summary and recommendations from the CDC study?
"…food manufacturers should consider using either heat-treated or pasteurized flour in foods that are ready-to-cook or ready-to-bake because they may be consumed before they are cooked or baked."
The article goes on to note, in a bland tone of fascinated horror:
"Eating cookie dough is a popular practice despite label warnings against it. <b>In fact, the study authors found that many of the patients treated for E. coli in 2009 said they bought the dough with no intention of ever baking it. They just planned to eat it uncooked.</b> This underscores the likelihood that label statements and even education directed at consumers may not be enough to deter people from eating uncooked cookie dough, so making it as safe as possible may be the best solution."
And how much longer can the state conscionably allow unpasteurized meat to be sold, when some uncouth, uneducated person like myself might be buying it with the explicit intention of eating it raw?
(Which reminds me to ask my farmer whether it's even possible ("legally") to get fresh meat from him before it's been frozen…)
This kind of statement gets made often. There is a delusion that nothing is safe unless it has some kind of stamp on it from some guy in an office who is paid to put stamps on things. Nothing can be farther from the truth. I'm not denying people access to that delusion if that's what they want, just don't deny me the me and my friends the oportunity to each decide for ourselves what is safe for us. In reality that is no less safe than the guy who gets paid to put stamps on things. Further, it's folks like us deciding what we want that is different from everyone else that provides to the real innovation and improvement in what we eat, or in most other areas of life.
I am well aware that government and sectarian infiltration is an ongoing problem in many social movements. You aren't telling me anything I don't already know.
There is much that has been written about security culture, for this very reason. Please take a look at these links, again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_culture
http://security.resist.ca/personal/securebooklet.pdf
http://security.resist.ca/personal/culture.shtml
It seems that the biggest problem we face today is not government infiltration, it is sectarianism and McCarthyism in our own movement, and I am really sick of it. I can only imagine that Bill Marler and his cronys at FDA, USDA, and CDC are relishing in how our movement is tearing itself apart on this blog, as the state continues its crackdown against raw milk farmers.
Way to go, Lola.
No, Mark McAfee is not working for the CIA. If I had to guess that anyone here was working for the CIA, I'd guess it is you. If you don't like RAWMI then don't join us. All of our efforts and programs are 100% voluntary.
There is only one problem with the raw milk movement, and it is the almighty voice of Bill Anderson marching under the banner of RAWMI, all the while casting aspersions and innuendos amongst the people that fail to bend their knee and kiss his ring.
Your ramblings Bill are incendiary. Any person with an ounce of common sense can see that YOU BILL ANDERSON are not of sound mind and have willfully destroyed any chance for RAWMI to even seem legitimate now.
Mark how much did you spend to set up RAWMI? Are you happy with your board member continuing all the in-fighting and being the hammer that drives this wedge deeper, fracturing a movement across the nation?
re. meat that has never been frozen, it maybe that USDA rules are that if two or more different meats are shipped in the same truck, then the whole kit-and-kaboodle must be frozen.
Ingvar
Responsible raw milk producers should seek 3rd party accreditation, just as many environmentally responsible farmers currently seek organic certification, so they can receive a premium price for their milk and produce. There is nothing wrong with this. I am really sick of the hate speech.
If you don't like RAWMI, then don't join us.
As for Ron Paul, here is some more breaking news on his ties with racism:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/politics/ron-paul-disowns-extremists-views-but-doesnt-disavow-the-support.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp
In this 1995 video, he seems to take credit for the racist newsletters:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/12/26/144281947/paul-disavows-newsletters-but-in-95-video-he-seems-to-claim-credit?ft=1&f=1001
Blogging tends to de-evolve into endless negativity and intentional bad communications. What seems to work much better is action….then blog about the progress later.
We are working on our newsletter, webinars for farmer assistance ( the first steps to being listed ), common standards and their individualized farmer specific food safety plans etc…. There is nothing I can say here that will replace action. Nothing. Negative ney saying will kill any attempt at dialogue. Progress is undeniable.
The best thing for RAWMI to do is get to work and demonstrate what it can do for farmers and consumers. RAWMI must stick to it's mission and ignore the negative background noise.
The biggest challenge for RAWMI will be ignoring the back ground noise as it demonstrates progress in real terms.
Common Standards are not to be feared. I have not met a consumer that did not love the idea of knowing what the hell they were eating or feeding their kids.
There are many paths to increased access to raw milk for all people. RAWMI supports all farmers regardless of size….if they are on that path.
Sadly, this last sentence will be disregarded, unread, demonized, and overlooked as if it was never written. The anti RAWMI ney Sayers have such loud hatred voices in their heads, they can not conceive of access to safe raw milk for more than just their private raw milk community. RAWMI is for all of us….
Watch and see the progress. Our actions will be worth blogging about.
Do you read your sources, or merely parrot other people's incorrect things? The link David provided shows the above at NPR is incorrect. He had multiple newsletters and an extensive staff. He wrote, contributed to, and knew primarily about the financial ones.
Of course, as usually, never let facts get in the way of a political agenda.
Or the fact that you cannot produce any evidence, whatsoever, of Paul making a racist statement, nor has anyone else, despite a huge effort being put into finding it… and utterly failing, Hmm… He is such a bigoted racist that there is no proof of him being an bigoted racist. Oh that is the worst kind, the worst kind.
But I encourage you, Bill, give us real evidence of Ron Paul himself being a racist. You seem to need something to put your time to better use.
Feel free to ignore the head of a NAACP group saying Paul is not a racist, because you as a white american who doesn't know Paul of course are the best qualified to determine who is and is not racist.
http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/24/ron-paul-no-racist-naacp-austin-president/
But you can find tons of statements actually by him to the opposite, and his policies are decidedly anti-racist (anti-war, anti-drug war, anti-death penalty, to name a few).
Hmm. Facts are stubborn things. Feel free to continue to ignore them. They have never, like with your treatment of Max Kane that I am sure will soon make headlines, stopped you from slandering good people before to advance you own particular agenda.
http://news.yahoo.com/kradjian-cheese-recalled-listeria-fears-182215903.html
Blogging tends to open channels of communication for those who wish to participate.
"It's local versus mass market. It's private versus public. It's community-based versus general market. It's unrated versus nationally standardized."
The above does say it all…
I doubt that Michael Pollan will ever find a "source of pure information on diet that is not clouded by the marketing efforts of the food (and drug) industry" there are too many differing views of how things should be. Unfortunately tptb feel they should make all the rules and all the surfs should obediently follow along….
First things first, John.
"Its fine if there are racist enclaves that ban raw milk"
No, its not! Oppression anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere. What is going on in Alabama and Arizona right now, where Mexican immigrants are being officially and systematically targeted by law enforcement, is a huge threat to the freedom of everyone, even if you are white.
As I've said before, this individualist ideology of "freedom for me and mine" without regard for the freedom of others is the reason we are in the mess we are in today. When Americans start caring about the common good and the freedom of ALL people, then we will start making progress on creating a free society.
As far as I am concerned, someone like Ron Paul is part of the problem not part of the solution. His own website calls for increased federal involvement in "securing" (aka MILITARIZING!) the US-Mexican border. Talk about big government!!!
I don't care if you vote for him. He's not going to win. I guarantee it. I'm going to keep working on food sovereignty issues in Wisconsin.
Please don't.
"securing" (aka MILITARIZING!) the US-Mexican border." How would you suggest keeping illegals, drugs,etc out of the US? The feds aren't doing their jobs…..
"Its fine if there are racist enclaves…"
Putting quotes on something and alluding that someone said it when in fact they did NOT say it, is no different than an out-right lie. What is your purpose in the lie?
"But I do know that RAWMI would be wise to go back to the drawing board, regroup, assess it mission, get feedback from the marketplace of farmers and consumers, and above all, listen to what the marketplace is saying. "
From Marks post, it appears he doesn't want to hear what others say….If he was listening, he would have heard much more than what he thinks he heard. Tsk tsk.
Please share, I am listening very carefully and i am very interested.
How would you secure safe raw milk access for all people from caring producers of all sizes?
On the last article, Southern Consumer asked you:
"Does Bill Anderson's comments regarding the situation in WI and the WI farmers accurately reflect the RAWMI board view?"
Please answer this – do Bill's views accurately reflect RAWMI's position?
You can go and read all the posts over the last few years on this blog (and elsewhere). That would give you views of the posters who have cows, etc. i won't reiterate what has already been said. Had you listened you wouldn't be asking now.
We answer to our members. Not everyone in RawMI shares my political views. Our staff person is actually a Republican, but I get along with her just fine and we agree on the need for responsible food safety measures if raw milk is to be sold to the general public.
Its clear that the ongoing dialogue on this blog is very anti-RawMI, and this small but vocal group of anti-RawMI people would prefer to restrict raw milk access to a privileged group of consumers who are "in the know" (remember, the etymology of the word "privilege" is PRIVATE LAW).
RawMI seeks changes in PUBLIC policy to allow raw milk to be sold to the general public. This is our primary agenda. If you disagree with this goal, then don't join us, or form your own group to advocate for the changes you want to see.
I am done commenting here for now. I am sick of all the negativity, conspiracy theories, and hate speech. I have more important things to do with my time.
Bill, this is a rather ironic claim. Who calls people racists with absolutely no evidence to support it? And when asked to produce evidence now on a 2nd issue does the same thing as last time – changes subject, ducks, dodges, then skedattles.
Thankfully, many others see through your games who read and post here.
Who sends out emails lamenting "divisions in the raw milk movement," then sends another email privately to people in WI trashing one of the most committed and principled people in the movement? And you wonder why people distrust RAWMI?
It is almost too sad to be funny.
If RAWMI has aroused so much ire against it, perhaps have you considered that it was earned by the way RAWMI and its proponents have treated people, brazenly, like you have done yet again the past 24 hours on this thread?
Just because Stacy is a republican doesn't amount to much of anything, and you know this Bill. There is pretty much zero difference between most republicans and democrats in modern America, so that claim just isn't going to get much mileage either.
And you again purposefully mischaracterize RP's views on immigration. I am pretty sure, unlike all his comrades, that he is completely against a border fence (waste of money, etc.).
Rather, he points out that if we took the incentives away for illegals to steal money from Americans through various benefits programs that should not be available to them, that would be the most fitting and constitutional solution. BTW, securing our borders is one of the constitutional duties of the national government… maybe you should read that document sometime before criticizing a presidential candidate for actually wanting to do the job they are supposed to do, rather than all the other things they do that are unconstitutional.
But again, don't let facts get in the way of you trashing Max Kane, or Ron Paul, or anyone else.
while I cannot answer for Barney, I could be persuaded to join RAWMI. I think there is a need for an association such as RAWMI and there is much potential for the group. There is a notable difference between Mark and Bill; one has passion, a deep passion, the other has ambition and anger. I have a great respect and admiration for the work that Mark has done in CA and believe that he is trying his best to make this work for all parties. I do not believe this of Bill based on his rehetoric.
Mark has stated that the goal is transparency so I ask again; is Bill's view towards the situation in WI and the farmers there the viewpoint of RAWMI? Bill's rhetoric on that situation is not an image that RAWMI needs as it will only hinder them as they go forward.
Your contempt for the small milk producer is obvious. He/she is just another obstinate cog in the process that puts a brake on you making your pricey "certified artisan raw milk " cheeses. We are fastidious, independent, and knowledgeable of our unique land and produce.
Bigger producers mean more product and money for you. Go with the gold!
And here's a YouTube for you, too!
MW
Milky Way makes an important point that the RAWMI web site "doesn't describe any standards." A big part of RAWMI's communication problem from all I can tell is that it is pushing a set of standards, but hasn't distributed those standards widely for feedback. This is part of the reason I was suggesting that RAWMI pull back and re-evaluate its approach. If you're going to preach transparency, you have to practice it.
David
I agree also about the lack of transparency about just what standards RAWMI is advocating. In California, we farmers heard that it was all about voluntary participation and education, but then experienced McAfee/RAWMI urging us to propose:
1. State Registration
2. Mandatory RAWMI membership
3. State specification of cow-share contract terms
"in order to be 'exempt' from Regulation"
These were to be our *starting* positions for negotiation!
Further, our squeaky-clean farmers we were advised to come to the CDFA "table" as a "unified team" with McAfee and Sharon Palmer, two farmers with arguably questionable histories when it comes to "doing things right", when it comes to honest dealings (both have been accused of misrepresenting the sources of what they're selling, and though Organic Pastures apparently has consistently low coliform counts nowadays, but the word was that their coliform counts were very, very high for years leading up to the sneak passage of AB 1735 back in 2007.)
It didn't help that McAfee told us, then, that our rights were "history", and that what we needed to do now was sit down and negotiate, politically, with entrenched regulators and big Ag interests.
Just what standards RAWMI would have for us were never clear, though we were assured that they would be appropriate for our individual situations, involve testing, and involve safety plans. All of those things sound fine in principle, and all of those things could be very onerous if/when interpretation+enforcement falls into the "wrong" hands.
All in all, it did not feel like RAWMI was "at the table" as much to support us as it was there to support some unspoken agenda for expanding the market for regulated, state-sanctioned raw milk.
I've heard it said that the biggest "economies of scale" in business are in influencing the political process. That's why RAWMI's stated desire to be involved in "legislative oversight" scares me.
For the record, I am not interested in privileges — only claiming my natural rights, and working to ensure that every other peaceful, honest person can do so as well.
Beautifully said!
Lets hope that the RAWMI board has good listening skills.
"Let's not forget that Rawesome was infiltrated for a full year before they were busted, undoubtedly by "sincere and committed" individuals that look just like you and me.
Let's not forget that McAfee's father was pardoned by Robert Kennedy himself for going to Cuba. If that were you or me we'd have gone to jail. "Pardons" are reserved for those who work for the CIA, as a way to keep their agents out of federal prison for their "crimes".
I have it on good authority that WAPF has already been infiltrated (actually, it was built from the ground up that way). Sound crazy? Research their lobbying history, especially in regards to NAIS – "By their fruits you shall know them". END QUOTE
Infiltrators always look like you and me. Is there another way to look? I mean, really, infiltrators don't glow in the dark (and ain't that a shame?).
I, personally, would like to see some references as to where you got these ideas. What does Mark's father being pardoned (?) have to do with raw milk, or should I say does it have something to do with raw milk? If not, why are you mentioning that?
WAPF does all kinds of lobbying. Is that news to you? Most of their lobbying efforts have to do with foods, however I know they are concerned about the NAIS situation. I don't understand your concern, however, about their activities in this regard. I'm concerned about NAIS just like most WAPF members are – is this wrong? And if it is wrong, WHY is it wrong?
As I mentioned before (I think on another thread) I'm not a fan of legislation because it tends to make things worse, not better. State supplied rules for farmers and suppliers of farm goods are one thing, but wanting national regulatory domain is going to cause headaches galore for small farmers. Likely it will put many of them on the chopping block. I don't think the whole RAWMI thing has been sufficiently thought through in regard to the little guys. Not everyone wants to be a Mark McAfee or run an operation like OPDC. Nor could they.
More isn't always better, sometimes it's just more.
In this case, less is better, IMPHO. But that's just me.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/china-tainted-milk-kept-s_n_414907.html
They "investigated" for a year before notifying the public…the US is no different.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/china-tainted-milk_n_1169896.html
Coming to a state near you…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ann-gentry/raw-milk-los-angeles_b_1067614.html
Wow, Farmer John, thanks for sharing that. My jaw dropped. I can see why you would not want to join McAfee, especially when he joins forces with the likes of Palmer. What a mess.
David, thank you for bringing the trust issues to light of public scrutiny.
I have not joined Palmer to do anything….
Palmer does not participate in the CDFA small herd working group. As far as my coliform counts are concerned…remember this, prior to 2008, the standards for CA retail raw milk did not include any measure of coliforms. None what so ever.
Prior to 2008, we measured SPC and not coliforms. Also, please remember that coliforms are not pathogens. They are a broad family and ever present group of bacteria that cover the earth. To elimate coliforms is to eliminate life on earth.
What is up with the super negative bashing???
OPDC has some of the lowest Coliform counts of any dairy anywhere.
The purpose of the comment was not to "bash" but to speak to the experiences of herd share farmers with having RAWMI "advocate" for us. I was giving some examples of the sort of "left handed" help/advice we were offered.
It is true that in October you suggested California herdshare Farmers bring Sharon Palmer to the CDFA Working Group, as part of a "united front". We rejected the suggestion, so she never made it to the Working Group. I considered the Sharon Palmer suggestion to be a sign that either RAWMI did not understand how Palmer's presence would serve to discredit us, or possibly as a sign that RAWMI wanted us discredited.
That lead to the second point, about what kind of credibility RAWMI "brings to the table" with the CDFA. When we farmers were researching your reputation, we heard a rather disturbing account of how the 10 coliform limit of AB 1735 came to be. (I don't know if this story is true, but it came from an "otherwise reliable source".) We heard that the CDFA had no respect for your ability to produce clean milk, because the CDFA had been testing your milk for coliforms all through the 200?-2006 period and that the counts were unreasonably high. It is true that there was no state standard for coliforms, but the report we heard is that the counts were very, very high and there was concern that this indicated that the milk was not clean, and that this concern was a major reason that the CDFA snuck through AB 1735. The point being made to us was that even if you wanted to help us, having you and RAWMI on "our side" as "safety experts" was not good strategy, because the CDFA was said to disrespect your competence to produce clean milk.
I had to have a good laugh about the coliform point you brought up. Our SPC were always very low….and if Coliforms are not used as a measure by statute, then why would a farmer measure them?? CDFA standards for retail raw milk did not include any measure of coliforms, becuase coliforms are not bad and they are not a measure of pathogens.
Remember this, I can get a very high coliform count on any raw milk. Just wait for it to get old and measure the coliform levels. CDFA was measuring old out of date raw milk not fresh raw milk. This was part of the CDFA data sneak attack. When the pubic is shown soured raw milk as a measure of fresh raw milk….that is corruption. That is dirty and that is missleading. The data that CDFA was gathering was political attack data to justify their AB 1735 Ambush on raw milk in CA. This is well documented by the conduct of CDFA during 2007. The hearings and the testimony in the state legislative hearings told the story of just how CDFA stole the legislative process, denied the CA public the opportunity to be heard and the right to be heard. It is the CA raw milk surprize of 2007. What a shock. Passing technical regulations on a consent item with put a hearing is corrupt. Asking the legislators ( staff managers ) to keep it secret is criminal.
It is one of the reasons that I do not trust CDFA. It is one of the reasons that I support the private cow share programs in CA and the CDFA "hands-off private Raw Milk " policy.
In case you have need seen this video it is well worth watching. This was the peoples answer to AB 1735. This is SB 201 and it was voted by the majority of both houses and vetoed by Arnold. The corrupt part of the CDFA story is not told….I will tell it someday. Right now I want peace in CA so we can feed people and grow our market.
We in the raw milk movement have a diverse group of voices. It is hard enough to join together for action. We must join together or we will be eaten by our own diversity.
RAWMI has taken some steps to be more action and less talk.
All the best,
Mark
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/SB201.pdf
Who knew I'd be supporting more regulations, but I did feel they were necessary given the circumstances. My suggestions for the legislation were not considered seriously. In fact, I got a great deal of flack over it. It's also interesting to note that my letter assumed outsourcing had stopped, but we know now that it continued at least into 2009.