It’s looking ever more likely that SB 201 will make its way through the California legislature and be signed by the governor—probably within the next month or two.
I know I should be exulting, along with Mark McAfee and California’s raw milk drinkers. On the level that it prevents a collapse of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Claravale Farm, and keeps the milk flowing, I am relieved.
But there’s a part of me that’s uncomfortable about what is happening in California. I haven’t been able to fully articulate my discomfort, aside from the fact that I have known the legislative effort reflects more expediency than anything else. It’s trading an impossible set of standards for different guidelines which must be better because they’re not impossible.
My discomfort clarified itself after I read carefully the latest version of SB 201, and then read Dave Milano’s comment about the underlying weakness of the medical community’s reliance on research, following my previous post.
When you read through SB 201, you realize that the California Department of Food and Agriculture retains a huge amount of discretionary authority over raw milk production going forward. This wide latitude may help explain its low-profile role in the debate thus far.
Essentially, if the CDFA doesn’t approve of a HACCP plan, it can shut a dairy down. One of the reasons it can use in shutting a farm is quite revealing.
“The department, in consultation with the State Department of Public Health, may suspend or revoke its approval of a Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point {HACCP} plan without prior notice if the department finds…the plan poses a public health risk due to changes in scientific knowledge or the hazards present.”
I don’t think there’s a lot of disagreement that the CDFA would much prefer that raw milk not be available in California. Given that reality, you don’t have to be a creative genius to come up with any number of scenarios an unfriendly CDFA could concoct to argue that “scientific knowledge” had changed to enough of an extent that all the existing HACCP plans were no longer adequate.
Supposing some new “research” comes out that suggests raw milk contains larger volumes of pathogens than previous research. Or there’s an outbreak somewhere else in the country that is blamed on raw milk? As Dave Milano puts it, “Look into the microscope, see a microbe, note that an individual or group became ill after contacting that microbe, kill the microbe. Case closed, fee collected, go home. ”
Yes, I know there is a well defined hearing process included within SB 201. But we all know how skilled bureaucracies are at exploiting such processes to delay and harass over long periods of time.
I don’t want to be a stick-in-the-mud here, and rain on everyone’s parade. I appreciate that there isn’t much choice in this situation. The germ-a-phobes need to be satisfied. I just have a hard time imagining life post-SB-201 going smoothly when the fox is guarding the chicken coop. The price for expediency can be very high.
Praise and thanks for your insight, You are hot on the trail!
Eat local,
-Blair
"that tomatoes from Mexico have been shipped to Florida, repacked and sold with tomatoes from Florida. Similarly, tomatoes from the United States are sent to Mexico, where they are repacked and shipped to the United States as a product of the United States."
this is not likely to be a problem for consumers of California tomatoes, because state law forbids co-mingling when the produce is sold with the state name on the label.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080628/LIFESTYLE01/806280337
We Americans have grown used to a food supply that is diverse, convenient and cheap. But are we willing to pay the price for a food supply that is all of these things and risk-free too?
Over 800 victims with a specific rare strain of Salmonella and no contaminated tomatoes. Doesnt anyone find this strange? Please explain how the FDC & CDC settled on tomatoes as the carrier. The mystery source continues to elude the authorities. Was tomatoes an easy target? It did start in early spring. This sounds like the finger pointing of OP in 2006.
I am disturbed by the term commingling. This is proof that labeling does NOT work. I would bet the majority thought the label identified where the product came from. I had thought if I bought a tomato that had a sticker that said it was from AZ., that it would be from AZ. By the various stories, this probably is not the case, no telling where the tomato (or any other food product) is from.
Bate & switch.. Isnt that illegal? Yet the govt allows it to occur. Who is responsible? The growers? Are they aware? If they are aware, what have they done/are doing to stop the false marketing? Is it the processors who are responsible? Is it the processing plants where the repackaging occurs? Who is protected from lawsuits? It’s false marketing.
I could lean towards the conspiracy theories; perhaps big AG and the govt entities are allowing/encouraging the contaminations so that it would be easier to pass the laws to steralize, GM and/or irradiate or fumigate our foods. Complete control.
Raw dairy; not only is the trend for raw dairy growing, the trend for fresh produce (pesticide/herbicide free), and meats/fish/poultry unadulterated is also growing. There are many more consumers at my local farmers market this year than there was last year. Maybe the govt/big AG sees the writing on the wall, consumers are wanting healthier foods. Foods that big AG cannot deliver.
Or could it be that the FDA & CDC are nothing more than a sham. Puppets for big AG. They allow the slaughterhouses to process the downer animals, the factory farm dairies/stockyards run-offs to contaminate the environment/water sheds and to contaminates the produce fields and our drinking water. Must be for money, as they surely are not looking out for consumers.
Food safety; what is safe to one is not safe to another. So the govt solution is to remove all choices from consumers. How can consumers make informed decisions when the govt doesnt do what they say they are supposed to do? How are consumers to know where products are really from? How are they to know what chemicals were added to or on the product? How are they to know the true health of the animals? The living conditions of the animals? The environments of the produce?
I’ll never believe any stamp on any produce again. I’ll continue to buy a farmer’s market from a grower I’ve come to know. I believe the key is educating the public on the various food products so that they can make their informed choices of what they wish to consume.
David, whenever the fox is guarding the coop, you can bet you will loose many chickens unless you ensure he cannot get in. That would be constant vigilance on your part, err he slips past you.
Email|Print|Single Page| Text size + By Lisa Rathke
Associated Press Writer / June 29, 2008
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2008/06/29/new_law_permits_farmers_to_sell_more_raw_milk/
HYDE PARK, Vt.For years, people have stopped by Applecheek Farm to buy milk — straight from the cow.
They consider it more nutritious than pasteurized milk. Now, a new law allows farmer John Clark to sell even more — up to 50 quarts a day — and to advertise it, but he hopes one day it will be more.
"Hopefully, it can expand so consumers can have a choice and farmers can have a choice," said Clark. "Farmers can have the choice to sell it and consumers can have the choice to buy it without limitations, and let it be a consumer and farmer relationship choice and not a bureaucratic choice."
Demand for unpasteurized milk has grown in recent years as consumers — worried about chemicals and hormones used in traditional dairy farming — seek alternatives. Raw milk advocates say it’s more nutritious, easier to digest than pasteurized milk, builds immunity and protects children from asthma.
But the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sees it more as a poison.
"Raw milk is inherently dangerous and it should not be consumed by anyone at any time for any purpose," said FDA spokesman Michael Herndon. [Would we expect him to say anything less? – Sharon]
The Vermont Agency of Agriculture says the 50-quart limit — up from 25 — reduces the risk of food-borne illness from unpasteurized milk that can contain harmful bacteria.
"It’s not a product that we promote, but it is legal to sell in Vermont, and for some farmers they find it as an economic opportunity," said Deputy Agriculture Secretary David Lane.
Raw milk fans are willing to pay as much as $10 a gallon — Clark gets $6 — compared to the roughly $2.25 a gallon he’s paid for his organic milk that later is pasteurized.
And Clark’s customers don’t mind driving to the farm in northern Vermont, drawing the milk themselves from a cooling tank and leaving their payment in a tin can.
About 12 years ago, a neighbor asked to buy raw milk and then word spread. Now, Clark estimates he has between 50 and 60 customers.
He’d like one day to deliver the milk to consumers along with the chicken, turkey, beef and eggs he raises.
For now, he gives samples away at farmers’ markets. State law bans him from selling it anywhere else besides his farm.
Maine is one of eight states that allow the sale of raw milk at retail stores, said Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates the consumption of raw milk.
In New Hampshire, farmers can sell directly to consumers, but are limited to five gallons a day unless they get licenses. Seven farms are able to sell to grocery stores because they are licensed and routinely inspected, said Leah Keller, supervisor of the state’s dairy sanitation program.
But 22 states ban the sale of raw milk for human consumption, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration prohibits cross-border sales.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, raw milk is a source of infections from salmonella, E. coli and other bacteria. Between 1998 and 2005, 1,000 people were sickened and two died from raw milk, the CDC said.
That’s why Vermont is taking a cautious approach, Lane said.
"Our main position is really an informed consumer," he said.
The agency has agreed to work with the Health Department, consumers, and farmers from both sides of the issue to determine if any additional policy changes are needed. The group expects to meet in August or early fall.
Some raw milk producers were disappointed with the compromise law. But others are happy that the Legislature is listening.
"We were pleased with it as a good first step," said Amy Shollenberger of the farm advocacy group Rural Vermont.
I found this post on the "forbidden" blog, but traced back to its original source 🙂 A serious critique of government’s response to the "tomato" outbreak. Thought you might appreciate this other point of view.
http://www.perishablepundit.com/index.php?date=6/28/08
Henwhisperer, Do you know why the dairies are limited on the amounts they can sell? Does the FDA/CDC really think that limiting the amount sold will reduce pathogens?
Thank you C2. That link confirmed what I suspected and enlightened further on the inadequacies of the FDA & CDC.
Sylvia, I agree this limit on the amount sold is really dumb. If the logic is that the raw milk product is dangerous, are they saying "first come, first serve to become ill?" That’s a pubic health intervention? Is the product dangerous or not? If it is dangerous, does this type policy suggest mitigation is by limiting the number of illnesses based on limiting distribution of the product?
Glad you liked the link about the difficulties and challenges in the public health system with regard to tomatoes (e.g. inept–doesn’t mean I’ll stop bothering you about risks relating to raw milk, but no faith in the current public health system to address raw milk or most any of the food safety problems)