One of the most important ideas to come out of the California raw milk hearing last week is that raw milk is an entirely different product from pasteurized milk. This is pretty obvious to those of us who consume raw milk, and appreciate the differences in its production and composition versus pasteurized milk, but it’s not obvious to much of the rest of the world, including regulators and public health experts, who tend to view it as untreated/unprocessed milk (i.e. dangerous).
Several witnesses at the hearing, including Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation, testified that coliform counts originated as a milk-testing standard to determine the effectiveness of pasteurization, not as a way to measure the safety of raw milk. I sensed that the main reason many of the attendees at the hearing were so encouraged was that Sen. Dean Florez seemed to internalize that fact, and didn’t come at raw milk as some kind of hot potato, so to speak.
I raise this point because, in the end, recognition that the products are different will be the key determinant in whether the proposals to loosen the coliform standard, implement a HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point) program, and do pathogen testing—which look likely to replace AB1735—will really work. In other words, the regulators are going to have to change their attitudes toward raw milk from “dangerous” food to separate food category. If they view it the way they view beef, pork, and eggs, then they won’t always be looking to make trouble.
If the AB1735-replacement-approach really works, California could become a pioneering model for the wider availability of raw milk around the country. More consumers could gain regular access to raw milk in their retail stores. This isn’t to say that there aren’t a significant number who wouldn’t prefer to go directly to the farm and know exactly what they are getting.
I think this vision helps explain why Mark McAfee, the owner of Organic Pastures, is so excited, per his comment on my previous post. He sees the possibility of the anti-raw-milk forces embracing the reassuring standards associated with HACCP and pathogen testing.
My feeling, based on all I’ve seen over the last two years, is that we’re still a long way from the regulators changing their stripes, especially considering that the California Department of Food and Agriculture boycotted the California Senate hearing last week. Representatives of its mentor organization, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have stated that making raw milk more widely available “is not a debatable issue.”
Mark has a right to be excited over the progress that came out of the California Senate hearing last week, especially since it was so much his doing. And he sees hope for realizing his vision of expanding OPDC much further. (In the photo above, Mark sprays clean the Organic Pastures mobile milking trailer last week, prior to the milking of his cows.)
Until CDFA demonstrates that its attitude has changed, I caution Mark to make sure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s crossed—i.e. that the CDFA is either truly on board or else excluded from enforcing the HACCP plans (and they’re completely audited by nonpartisan private auditors).
Right now, we don’t have any encouraging models about use of HACCP plans as part of raw milk regulation to encourage peace between regulators and producers. In his comment on my previous post, Mark states that Australian dairies use HACCP plans. Yet the pro-raw-milk microbiologist from Australia who testified in Sacramento last Tuesday, Ron Hull, noted that “Australia has not legalized raw milk,” making Australia much more restrictive than the U.S. So the Australian dairies using HACCP plans are conventional dairies, overseen by sympathetic regulators. Moreover, Dr. Hull testified, “HACCP plans can be effective. But they can be a lot of gobbledygook. They are great for bureaucrats.” Combine gobbledygook and bureaucrats and you have the potential for big trouble.
Remember, the bureaucrats don’t have to score a victory to win. They can accomplish their goals via harassment and obfuscation, and HACCP plans can provide a new vehicle for both. If the regulators go that route, I’m not certain Sen. Dean Florez will be there to rescue California’s raw milk dairies the next time around.
Thanks so much for your blog! I’ve enjoyed it very much, as well as reader comments.
RE HACCP issue. I’m the administrator for the Raw Milk Association of Colorado (RMAC), a group of producers and consumers who want to self-regulate. Herd-shares are the only way legally to get raw dairy products in Colorado.
At this point I’m grateful that CO has this contractual agreement – the only thing producers have to do to be legal is notify the Health Dept that they are producing raw milk, label the milk jars as unpasteurized milk, and post their procedures for shareholders. I don’t think raw milk should be sold in stores. It’s a farm product.
We are a little nervous about the number of backyard dairies that are not legal; if one of us fails and people get sick, they’ll come after all of us. But it is freedom from bureaucracy and government intervention. Most shareholders know their farmers. Many farms offer eggs, meat, etc.
Some farmers think testing is a waste of money; they know their business and they know if an udder is sub-par. Others test every batch, not because they don’t trust their milk, but because they want to prove it’s consistently clean.
The only reason I haven’t completely dismissed state support is I think there are a few decent legislators who support small farms, and we may need their help some day. I also dream about getting funding for milk tests. The health dept thinks it is a public health issue. But is it – under a contractual agreement??
If they are allowed to meddle with the milk tests, I am afraid they’ll start meddling with the farmers. (The other thing I fear is RMAC becoming too bureaucratic itself…)
Thanks and praise,
-Blair
"prior to THE milking of his cows"
With hose in hand, without the clarifier, you give the impression that Mark actually milks his own cows.
It’s nice to see he (personally) runs a clean show though.
And its better than a picture of him on the phone with the investment bankers.
The mass production/chain-store retail model does not best serve raw milk.
2/ 14/ 62/ 730/
Bob Hayles
It seems IMHO, that when just about anything is "mass produced" it looses quality. And when an item passes through many hands, the potential for contamination/spoilage is much greater.
Kathryn, It’s nice to hear that things are coming together for you. I know that you’ve worked hard rebuilding after the fire.
When we are talking about law,then my first question has to be– Where does a state regulatory agency get its authority to regulate direct farmer-to-consumer sales?If the farmer has applied for a lisence,then he has entered a contract and must follow the contract.If he deals with anonymous "public" people,then the state can justify the regulation as "protecting the public".
If the farmer deals only with a small community of supporters, who accept responsibility for educating themselves and inspecting the farm themselves,does it really matter whether it is called a sale or a herdshare?Is there any law that the state can point to that gives it the authority to regulate these strictly private agreements between people?
If we do not distribute milk in public places and it is bottled by the consumer into their own containers,Can anyone tell me how the authorities could justify any regulations at all?
Regular readers of this blog will not be surprised that Miguel is onto another important issue, but in this case it is one that is functionally moot, because children are involved.
There is probably no more personal relationship than between parent and child, yet government controls wedge into it all the time, of course to protect children from "bad" decisions that parents might make. Most everybody accepts that society must protect children from bad parentsmust not abuse your child; must protect your child from harmbut all rule making is a slippery slope, and we are now well down the hill on this one.
Consider the evolution of thinking regarding governments authority in the parent-child relationship: Must go to school; must use a car seat; must receive proper medical care; must not smoke near your child; must vaccinate your child; must not spank your child. Each step (predictably) edges closer to the personal. In California, except for the recent loud groundswell of raw milk support, it would be no trouble at all to prohibit raw milk sales, to protect the children.
The reason that the state can tell you what to feed your children is because you have entered into a contract with the state concerning your children.When they were born,you registered them with the state.A birth certificate was created on which you agree to share authority with the state regarding the children.Your marriage lisence, also a contract with the state,also gives it some authority over your children.All of the contracts with the state are offered by the state to entice you into relinquishing your inalienable rights.
They cannot take these rights from you without your consent.Of course they never spell out in the contract that they are assuming these powers,so a good case could be made that these contracts are designed to deceive and are fraudulent.
If you don’t have any contracts with the state in which you voluntarily agree to give up your inalienable rights,then there is no law that gives them the authority to tell you how to care for your children.
You can find the story at:
http://www.ethicurean.com or http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com
It was disappointing to learn that the raw dairy I’ve been buying may have been "outsourced". On Amanda’s post; Mark has stated that his is a closed herd now.
No…the folks I would make it mandatory for are those working to deny us the right to choose…make it mandatory that if they want dairy, it must be raw…take away THEIR choice and see how they like it…
Bob
Mark stated that the HACCP he wrote requires a closed herd. He plans to close it by May 5. He plans not to buy outside product for cream or butter but still has not clarified on kefir or cheese.
The right dairy may have been tested. The pathogen could have come from Kerman. It’s hard to rule out the other dairy when the state didn’t know to test it. My understanding is that "the state" only learned about outsourcing when we did — in Sep of 2007 in the cream case.
The records that would show the movement of milk would be the dairy’s financial records, though the milk pool data could shed some light as well. I expect the state could subpoena the financial records but apparently didn’t at the time. I have a hard time blaming the state on not knowing to ask Mark if he was outsourcing. None of his promotional materials even give a hint that he was doing so.
Amanda
When the regulators offer you a contract or lisence,the exchange is that if you follow all of their rules, they will give you some relief in the way of reduced responsibility if someone is injured by your products.After all they are the ones who make the rules so they are willing to take some responsibility as long as their rules are followed. This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
If you want to bear the full responsibility for your actions,then you can produce your milk by your own rules.
The regulators don’t have any authority that we haven’t willingly given them.When a large % of the people have willingly given them authority over their lives,they will naturally assume that everyone has given them the authority.Even law recognizes this assumption of authority as legitimate.
The regulators need to be put on notice that, as individuals ,some of us have not chosen to delegate our authority to them.There is a lawful process that must be followed to give them notice.With this as evidence that you are acting in good faith and have given the authorities an opportunity to respond if they disagree with your claim of authority over your own life(they won’t),you have the start of a defensible position against their regulations.
Of course you are completely responsible if you injure someone else.
If some people want to contract with the state to reduce their liability, they should negotiate the rules before signing the contract.
I feel totally mislead by OP and Mark McAfee.
‘100% Pasture Grazed’ yet OP feeds some grains?
The colostrum sold by OP in 2006 was from Vander Eyk Dairy? I am well aware of the goings on of Vander Eyk, and had seen Amanda Rose’s video of Vander Eyk shortly after their certification was revoked.
The Raw Milk Movement is based on intregrity, on ‘knowing your farmer’. I have never misled any of my farmshare members, I believe in transparency.
The information Amanda Rose has uncovered, I fear, will be a great setback to the Raw Milk Movement.
Amanda, thank you so much for getting this information out. So many things actually make sense now.
Thank goodness for my Amish farmers.
It’s when you start selling nationwide, and allow the increasing demand to drive you (rather than focusing in on the product) that one can stray. Marks herd should have been closed a long time ago.
I refuse to purchase a cow and milk it. Every drop that I have put in my can has been raised from calf on my pastures. Has this slowed the growth of my business…you bet…but I’m totally confident in the product…and my customers count on it. I wouldn’t expect an investment banker to understand.
Don’t blame Mark for his vision…we all have perspectives to fulfill. Recognize though that other models serve the product better, and give us an opportunity to change the way people look at, and purchase their food. Do we really want raw milk to encourage more mindless shelf picking? There is so much more potential there.
My questions for Mark: What grains are you feeding the cows? Approximately how often and how much (I am aware this could be fluctuating), Are you feeding the grains, weekly? monthly? Or only when the pastures aren’t yelding natural grass?. Is it corn? Wheat? Barley? Of the grasses, if they are unable to graze (from lack of grazing pasturs; what grasses are you feeding them? Alfalfa?
I am glad you are closing your heard. I would think that by doing so decreases the potential for contamination.