It was "a very exciting day" in Sacramento today, reports Mark McAfee, owner of California’s largest raw milk dairy.
The California Assembly’s Agriculture Committee voted unanimously to support compromise legislation that will allow for a six-month stay on any coliform testing, per the 10-coliform-per-milliliter requirements of AB 1735. During the six months, milk will be tested and research conducted, with the expectation that a new higher standard will be put in place, likely allowing for 50 coliforms per milliliter–in the bulk tank. "We can meet that easily," says Mark.
"It was a big win," says Mark. "It wasn’t a 100% win. And it’s not in final law."
The compromise must still be passed by the Assembly, the Senate, and then be signed into law by the governor. There could be further hearings in the Senate. And after six months, the 50-coliform standard isn’t guaranteed; it could be another standard.
I suspect that because of the lingering uncertainty, some raw milk advocates will be suspicious over what standard will finally come out after the six-month delay. But for now, the fact that the compromise was passed unanimously by the committee and that the chairperson, Nicole Parra, enthusiastically supports it, bodes well.
Some 700 people filled up the hearing room to capacity, with most wearing "I Love Raw Milk" buttons, says Mark. Another 250 supporters couldn’t get in.
Mark reports that the California Medical Association testified against lifting the standard of AB 1735, while the state’s dairy associations were neutral.
It all sounds encouraging, but it also sounds as if there are more i’s to dot and t’s to cross than some might prefer. I think that raw milk drinkers will need to remain alert and vigilant over the coming months, since it’s pretty obvious that only because of their persistent lobbying have things moved as far as they’ve moved.
A word of caution — from what I have heard the producers say, there is no actual reason to have a coliform standard below several thousand applied to raw milk. Whether it’s 10 or 50, numbers in the two digits are just meaningless. So if we end up with a standard of 50, that leaves the impression that coliform testing at this level is valid, and then two years down the road, or five, another effort can be made to "tighten" the "standard" when folks are not looking.
We just need to keep in mind that the ONLY reason a coliform standard was introduced for raw milk was to discriminate against it and create a de facto ban. To settle for 50 (bulk) because the producers can probably meet it misses the point — which is that 50 coliforms per ml do no harm whatsoever. Same for 100. To accept this standard would perpetuate a lie that would come back to bite us later. And the lie is just as big in a 50-coliform standard as in a 10-coliform one.
This is what some people very involved in this struggle have been saying, and I thought I should pass it on. We do need to keep an eye on the political — and regulatory — theater here. If the 50 standard would just be to allow CDFA to save face, well, maybe they shouldn’t be able to save face, given what they did.
Producers, please correct me if I’m wrong — I think I remember Ron saying coliforms needed to be in the tens of thousands to be a problem, and then it’s only a quality problem, not safety. But I am not an expert! Please weigh in. Thanks all.
This is my report —
Dear All,
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/todevnt/committee_codes/HZZZCX01.html
I am just returning from what I experienced as a most memorable and inspirational day in Sacramento, joined by others from our local San Francisco chapter and from all over California. It absolutely restored my faith in due process.
I thought the way the events unfolded was absolutely riveting and I was at the edge of my seat!
For some background to today’s events — read today’s San Francisco Chronicle article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/16/BAEBUFL9G.DTL
In short, Nicole Parra, the Chair of the Agricultural Committee proved to be our champion claiming that she would not agree (quite passionately in my mind) to leaving the law as is — which would require 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter of milk. In fact, during final negotiations she said that would have to happen "over my dead body". As a legislator, she took full responsibility for the fact that the process that the law AB 1735 was enacted was unjust and undemocratic … that she intended to make a wrong right by her proposal AB 1604, which she authored. AB 1604 was intended to reverse AB 1735.
While the law AB 1735 was not reversed — a negotiation took place before our eyes whereby the committee unanimously agreed that the law be suspended until July 1, 2008 at which time the two raw milk dairies will be required to have a 50 coliform bacteria per millimeter of milk at the tank — which Organic Pastures was amenable to. Ron Garthwaite testified that any restriction of coliform was unnessary being that it is not unsafe and need not be regulated but, Claravale agreed to the amended terms nonetheless. My understanding is that 50 coliform is something both dairies could maintain at the tank.
Besides Nicole’s impassioned stance, there were others on the committee who were clearly distressed by the fact that the law was passed without an opportunity to hear any objections and spoke with emotion about the travesty of that. One committee member told us about her childhood memories of drinking raw milk — even recounting the names of the dairy cows on her relative’s farms.
The proponents of AB 1604 who testified after Nicole Parra included Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, Ron and Collette Garthwaite of Claravale and who we think was the owner or founder of Whole Foods who has been drinking raw milk for 30 years (and let us all know he was still here) and whose grocery is selling raw milk throughout the state of California. He let us know that Whole Foods was the largest commercial distributor of raw milk in the state. Does anyone who attended know his exact title and name? I was very impressed with the testimony of all.
No one from the California Department of Food and Agriculture was present to testify. I believe they will be asked to account for themselves at some point though. There was opposition — I didn’t take their names — whose arguments about the safety of raw milk we are well aware of but, who didn’t seem to convince the members of the Agricultural Committee.
This will now leave the committee, go to the assembly and then to the governor.
The crowd of raw milk supporters was overflowing … every single seat taken in the chambers and the gallery — with folks lined up in the hallways outside. It definitely had an impact as the legislators acknowledged us as an overflowing audience on several occasions before allowing us to "testify" directly. Despite folks’ desire to share more, we were repeatedly limited to stating our name, where we came from and simply stating that we were in support of raw milk and/or AB 1604. Folks even came as far as Los Angeles by plane — others driving for hours.
I was deeply, deeply moved! I introduced myself to Nicole, as many of us did at the conclusion of the hearing, and thanked her for her courage on behalf of our whole community. The members were all made well aware that we represented many, many more.
This is by no means over as AB 1604 now needs to go to the assembly and the governor — yet, it seemed like the consensus was that it was clearly a victory and a critical foundation for the next step.
The people who pushed and passed AB 1735 under the cloak of darkness, in a process that was ‘unjust and undemocratic’, need to be ousted from their offices. Period. If the people of the state of California allow these thieves and villians to remain in their offices, it sends the message that this sort of behavior is acceptable in a ‘democracy’ – and it WILL happen again.
Please, now that you’ve got the momentum, call for these people’s resignations.
It’s been a while since I listened to it, so I am not sure if your specific questions are answered but he does talk about the testing of raw milk for pathogens that has been standard for years.
http://www.metrofarm.com/mf_Food_Chain_Radio.php
Scroll down to Show #564 A Real Raw Deal
http://www.metrofarm.com/index.php
http://www.metrofarm.com/mf_Food_Chain_Radio.php
Prior to January 1st 2008, grade A raw milk had to meet two of the requirements of pasteurized milk in order to be sold as raw for human consumption. Grade A raw milk also has additional requirements not required of pasteurized milk. It must be from a dairy herd that is tested annually to be 100% TB Free. Other dairies do not have this testing.
Specifically :
1. Grade A raw milk is tested for human pathogens which can not be detected including: Salmonella, Listeria M, Campylobacter, Ecoli 0157H7.
2. Grade A raw milk had to contain fewer than 15,000 total bacteria per ml which is the same as what is allowed for pasteurized milk after pasteurization.
After January 1st AB 1735 would have added the less than 10 coliform per ml requirement. Never has there been this requirement for grade A raw milk for human consumption. This level of coliforms can not be achieved on a reliable basis ( especially when tested in the finished product ) AB 1735 would in effect result in closure of raw milk dairies over time ( less than 100 days ).
AB 1604 overturns portions of AB 1735 and delays any testing of coliforms until July 2008 when coliform levels must be less than 50 in the bulk tank. This level is achievable on a reliable basis.
Coliforms are essential to the safety of raw milk. Their presence strongly inhibits the growth of pathogens. So this level of coliforms is really unsupported and ridiculous when critically evaluated. More coliforms is better for raw milk safety. It is a matter of balance between good and bad bacteria. Coliforms are good and play a positive role in food safety. Most politicians and their handlers do not understand this science.
AB 1604 passed with unanimous consent yesterday in the most amazing showing of democracy ever seen in recent times in CA. There was a public admission of fault and a passionate demand to correct the error. There was also a demand by Assemblyman Tom Berryhill for the heads of those that mislead the legislature in the silent sneak attack to kill raw milk.
There was outrage.
Even Big Dairy GOT MILK people agreed that AB 1735 was an egregious breach of public trust and due process.
There was about 500-600 people present. 500 I love raw milk pins were given away and placed on supporters. There were many who wanted some but we had run out. There are about 400 seats in the upper and lower decks of room 4202. There were many people standing out side in the crowded hall and could not get in.
Makes me very proud to be a Californian. Not just for raw milk but for the health of our democracy. I not only love raw milk. I love Nicole Parra and what she did for us yesterday!! She took accountability and corrected mistake with all her heart.
She is also lactose intolerant, and from what we have heard she drank some OPDC raw milk last night and everything went well. Perhaps we can earn a new consumer.
What a great day!! Where California goes the world will surely follow.
Keep it raw and keep it green.
Now it’s understandable that Mark McAfee would fight for, and be happy about achieving, a 50 coliform/ml standard. After all, it allows his business to run. Well, fine for Mark (and yes, I recognize fine also for his many, many customers). But this is much, much bigger than Mark’s business. By agreeing to this silly standard, we encourage state bureaucrats to once again damage our food supply. How many times we have lamented rules and regulations that put corporate interests above food quality! Now we encourage it, because the benefits are accrued by a corporation that supplies a product we want.
While I appreciate Mark’s position, warping truth in a way that benefits corporate interests, even a valuable corporation, is very unwise–we are trading short-run success for long-run disaster. AuLait is right, or at least mostly right… We needn’t wait to be bitten in the future by regulators tightening this standard. It is far too tight already, and bites plenty hard enough as is.
This fight was presumably for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. What we’ve achieved is just one out of three. Not so wonderful a result to justify all the self-congratulation.
Now that this false standard has been accepted, attempts to arbitrarily (and covertly) tighten it will always be a threat – depend on it.
Reality is not good science. Reality is what we can negotiate under fire. We were under fire from forces that are corrupt.
They lost and we won. They failed to achieve a standard that would have killed our sacred raw milk.
Lets wake up and appreciate our wins. Lets also hire a lobbyist so we know when this kind of sneak attack is being engineered in the future so we can cut it off at the pass.
Thats my lessoned learned. We do not live in or produce a pioneering and revolutionary raw milk products in a vacuum. When our products kick butt .expect those effected to try and kick our butts Kicking butt is not free.
Raw milk is highly disruptive. Expect conflict as we disrupt. Brace and prepare for it.
Assemblyman Tom Berryhill reportedly said that heads will roll, meaning the corrupt officials that sneaked the original bill into law unethically and probably illegally. That absolutely MUST happen. If it doesn’t the sneaky, illegal, unethical attacks will simply take another form at another time. If there are substantial firings, and prosecution of those who did the illegal acts, the ag folks may not change their minds on raw milk, but they damn sure will think twice before breaking the law in an effort to destroy raw milk again.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead, a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-616.HTM
I’m surprised and delighted with the numbers of co-sponsors!
I’d be interested in your takes on it.
Sharon….don’t forget to listen tomorrow. See link in previous post.
Her latest post cautions us about the fragility of our democracy. [It’s currently at the top of the home page: ‘Got rBST? Welcome to the Commonwealth of Monsantovania’]. The key sentence: "Pennsylvanians discovered that their department of agriculture is a wholly owned subsidiary of Monsanto." Please, everyone, catch up with the milk-labeling situation in Pennsylvania. Although it’s ‘only’ about pasteurized milk, it’s the same players: "the devil buried deeply in the corrupt and ignorant ag committee and their handlers" to quote Mark McAfee, above, in the case of CA, translates to "the devil buried deeply in the corrupt and ignorant" PDA. The more we learn and understand about their MO, the better prepared we are to smoke them out and push back, alerting our elected officials to what’s going on behind the scenes. We know that they are systematically attacking raw milk in several states, via the regulators. Since it’s up to us to connect the dots for those who can put a stop to their efforts, notifying legislators and governors to rein in their wayward bureaucrats, the more fronts we can keep track of, the easier, in the long run, it will be, as the evidence accumulates, pointing to a well-financed backdoor campaign to buy off our government for corporate monopoly of our food choices.
………..
A few days ago I linked to a 3-part review of William Engdahl’s ‘Seeds of Destruction’ by Stephen Lendman. It turns out that part 3 is not [yet] at the link provided. It provides more background on the workings of the same major actor (and its antecedents) in the attack on raw milk. I recommend reading the entire review, which is posted at the author’s blog: http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/ for a chilling overview on the "strategy to control "global food security" that goes back to the 1930s and the plans of a handful of American families to preserve their wealth and power."
Great job everyone!
maria.
Afterwards, it occurred to me that rather than changing the coliform level from 10 to 50, if the legislature was considering a minor rewrite of AB1735, what should have been considered is to change the word "coliform" to "E. Coli 0157:H7" everywhere in the document.
It seems to me that the original intent of AB1735 was to protect the public from bacteria deemed to be dangerous, and that everyone is in agreement that E. Coli 0157:H7 is the dangerous bacteria.
On their web site, Organic Pastures says they already test for E. Coli 0157:H7, and they never have any in their milk. This indicates that the test is already available. It also explains why no one has ever been proven to have been made sick by drinking their raw milk.
There was one other thing about the meeting that was not discussed. CDFA was not there. They were roll-called by the chairperson, and no one answered. As I understand it, CDFA proposed and drafted the original bill, they are the agency that will be required to enforce it, and they are the agency with the data to scientifically defend the standards the bill requires.
We know they were probably not there because they would have been scolded for bringing a bill like this into law with a consent-only process. And scolded for not informing Claravale dairy about the bill even as they were working with Claravale on their plant expansion process (which Ron Garthwaite, of Claravale Dairy, spoke about).
However, I think the absence of CDFA should have been spoken to by the legislative committee. Someone should have pointed out how important it was for CDFA to be present, and sent some kind of censuring or scolding memorandum to CDFA for not showing up. CDFA showed a huge lack of respect for the legislators and all the raw milk supporters (the general public). Some of us came there from Los Angeles and the Bay Area and indeed, from all over California! Why couldn’t one person from the CDFA at least just show up?