Six days ago, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures proclaimed after the well-attended Sacramento hearing on AB 1604, “We all won!… Thanks to last minute ‘hallway negotiations,’ Assembly Bill AB 1604 passed with unanimous consent during Ag Assembly hearings held on Wednesday. This will ensure, for now, the continued flow of raw milk in California."
Major blogs like The Ethicurean hailed the news, complete with victory photos of Mark and supporters. For good reason.
Now the latest word from the Left Coast is that we’re about to lose. In an email today to media and supporters, Mark states: “Our AB 1604 raw milk bill will die tomorrow in the Assembly Appropriations Committee… we need to call them and raise holy hell!! The other day was just all grand theater. Big dairy and CDFA pulled off some slimy dirty tricks in their death march to deny us raw milk!! Let’s see if we can appeal to the committee members and get their votes anyway!! We might as well go down trying as hard as we can. We still have a great lawsuit pending!!”
This whole thing is beginning to remind me of what it felt like to be a Boston Red Sox fan for 87 years before late October 2004.
But it’s also a vivid demonstration about why the struggle over raw milk could actually be different this time around. I harken back to my interview with Ron Schmid, author of “The Untold Story of Milk”, posted a few days ago. His assessment about the raw milk situation was pretty grim. He’s seen all this before.
There was, however, one factor that I didn’t discuss in the posting, but which Don Neeper perceptively pointed out in his comments following the posting: the impact of the Internet.
I did raise this with Ron, and he acknowledged that it definitely is a wild card. I think it’s difficult for the historians in this struggle, like Aajonus Vonderplanitz and Ron Schmid, to imagine that things could be different this time around. And the apparent sabotage of AB 1604 in California–by sending it to the Appropriations Committee, especially unfriendly territory for raw milk–seems to confirm their argument.
But in the old days, news about hearings and abuse of farmers didn’t always get around. There was no way to get it around, since the mass media didn’t cover it appropriately then (and still doesn’t). So when a seemingly done deal, like the passage of AB 1604 by the Assembly Agriculture Committee, unraveled only days later, it was very difficult to re-mobilize the troops.
Today it is possible to at least alert the troops. But can they stay mobilized and enthusiastic in such an up-and-down atmosphere? That is the big question to be determined.
This latest twist in a seemingly endless series of twists and turns conveys a truly important lesson: in this struggle for nutritional freedom, we are up against very tough professionals. These people from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, along with their legislative and industry cronies, know the system backwards and forwards. They know moves we can’t imagine.
Most significant, they are reaching ever deeper into their bag of tricks, for one significant reason: they want to end the struggle HERE AND NOW. They want desperately to stop it in its tracks because demand for raw milk is growing so strongly. If they can’t stop it now, then they may lose to the unstoppable force of market demand. A number of the comments following the interview with Ron Schmid–by Lori McGrath, Barb Smith, and Pete–described the changing nature of the struggle.
So my advice is not to let the mood swings here become too discouraging. As Gary Cox, lawyer for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, has said a number of times, we are fighting the good fight.
These arguments aside, I revoke anything nice which I previously said about the Ag Committee and its Chair until proven otherwise. Before too long, we will find out who engineered this maneuver, and they will pay the price of being exposed in the bright light of sunshine, whether they be legislative, agency, corporate or otherwise. Such is the power of this communication device, operating nearly in real time.
These people have absolutely no desire to compromise at all…none…and as they demonstrated on 1735 they don’t even care if they go beyond unethical to illegal to take care of their corporate masters.
Gary, Steve, and Pete…line out for us just what laws were broken, and by whom, in the passage of 1735. After that, you California citizens…go to your local district attorneys all over the state, in every location that has a local district attorney, and demand…DEMAND…that warrants be issued for those criminal acts…that indictments be sought for criminal acts.
Folks, either this country belongs to the bureaucrats and corporations, or it belongs to "we the people". The bureaucrats and corporations are willing to fight hard…to fight with everything they have, legal and illegal…to make this country theirs. We MUST be willing to fight just as hard, but with ethics, to keep it the people’s.
Folks, we better get REALLY angry and active, and we better do it right now, or very simply WE WILL LOSE.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
"The California Department of Food and Agriculture protects and promotes California’s $31.8 billion agricultural industry. California’s farmers and ranchers produce a safe, secure supply of food, fiber and shelter; marketed fairly for all Californians; and produced with responsible environmental stewardship."
Their top priority, which they make no bones about, is to protect and promote Big Agriculture, meaning Big Dairy in this case. They do not promote Little Agriculture at the expense of Big Agriculture, and their top priority is not to protect citizens. It is to protect a multi-billion dollar industry.
The other thing to remember is that except at the very top, they are on salary and invulnerable to any pressure except internal pressure – ie from their bosses. The only people vulnerable to public pressure are at the top, so if you want to exert any pressure, that’s where it has to be. That’s why I think it is important to say every time you discuss this issue, that "CDFA, headed by Secretary A. G. Kawamura, moved to ban raw milk."
Or "the CDFA, headed by Secretary A. G. Kawamura, tried to push a bill through the Assembly without a vote" — or whatever it is they do.
Someone’s name has to be attached to it – and whether or not Kawamura even knew about it, he is ultimately responsible, especially if the real trolls are going to be allowed to keep hiding under the bridge.
And in a possibly irrelevant aside, Kawamura has a ponytail and a literature degree from Berkeley. That’s cool and everything, but come on, dude, do the right thing!
—————————————-
Date: January 23, 2008 11:08:46 PM PST
Subject: Emergency Action Alert for Raw Milk – Wed and Thursday Jan
23 and 24
Dear Friends,
I just talked to Organic Pastures at 10:40 pm tonight (Wed Jan 23)
I was told that CDFA had a secret meeting this week, and apparently did more illegal things
AD1604 is going into the Appropriations Committee tomorrow morning between 11 am and 11:30 am. CDFA has vowed to kill the new Raw Milk bill AB 1604 that we support at the Appropriations Committee hearing.
Please respond to the Appropriations Committee as soon as possible:
1- we want them to pass AB1604
2- that we have been treated unfairly by AB1735 being passed and AB1604 rights that injustice.
3- they are being watched
One of the key issues here is that natural unheated raw milk has been accused of causing illness, when in fact it was milk and cheese that were heated to 150 degrees (10 degrees below pasteurization) and therefore could still be called "raw." We
prefer raw unheated healthful dairy that has been never been heated.
Thanks you,
Cathe’
California State Assembly
Committee on Appropriations
Committee Jurisdiction
Primary jurisdiction is fiscal bills, including bonds and alternative public financing.
Committee Members
Committee Members District Phone E-mail
Mark Leno – Chair
Dem-13 (916) 319-2013 Assemblymember.leno@assembly.ca.gov
Mimi Walters – Vice Chair
Rep-73 916) 319-2073 Assemblymember.walters@assembly.ca.gov
Anna M. Caballero
Dem-28 (916) 319-2028 Assemblymember.Caballero@assembly.ca.gov
Mike Davis
Dem-48 (916) 319-2048 Assemblymember.Davis@assembly.ca.gov
Mark DeSaulnier
Dem-11 (916) 319-2011 Assemblymember.DeSaulnier@assembly.ca.gov
Bill Emmerson
Rep-63 (916) 319-2063 Assemblymember.emmerson@assembly.ca.gov
Jared Huffman
Dem-6 (916) 319-2006 Assemblymember.Huffman@assembly.ca.gov
Betty Karnette
Dem-54 (916) 319-2054 Assemblymember.Karnette@assembly.ca.gov
Paul Krekorian
Dem-43 (916) 319-2043 Assemblymember.Krekorian@assembly.ca.gov
Doug La Malfa
Rep-2 (916) 319-2002 Assemblymember.lamalfa@assembly.ca.gov
Ted W. Lieu
Dem-53 (916) 319-2053 Assemblymember.Lieu@assembly.ca.gov
Fiona Ma
Dem-12 (916) 319-2012 Assemblymember.Ma@assembly.ca.gov
Alan Nakanishi
Rep-10 (916) 319-2010 Assemblymember.nakanishi@assembly.ca.gov
Pedro Nava
Dem-35 (916) 319-2035 Assemblymember.nava@assembly.ca.gov
Sharon Runner
Rep-36 (916) 319-2036 Assemblywoman.Runner@assembly.ca.gov
Jose Solorio
Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.solorio@assembly.ca.gov
"I was told that CDFA had a secret meeting this week, and apparently did more illegal things…"
Please be specific. What, specifically, was done illegally, what specific laws were broken, and, specifically, by whom…name names. Give those California residents who are willing to engage in the war on our side something to work with.
Going to a district attorney and saying, "the CDFA did something illegal." accomplishes NOTHING. On the other hand, going to a district attorney and being able to say, "Joe Smith, the area poo-bah over area three with the CDFA, on said date at such and such location, committed an illegal act that hurts Californians, specifically by breaking X law by comitting the following acts…1, 2, 3…and as a citizen I want charges brought and indictments sought for said illegal acts."…now THAT, combined with press coverage of same, CAN have an effect…especially if LOTS of people do the same.
Folks, any way you cut it, it’s a war. Do you bhelieve in our cause enough to fight it?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
706.692.7004
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
We then talked at length about the coliform standard that has been in place for pasteurized milk for many years and how there has been no coliform standard for raw milk (that is intended to be consumed raw). She seemed to be up on her history of raw milk regulations in CA back as far as the 1920s. She stated several times that coliform counts are an indication of sanitation of the dairy and processing/bottling facility and that any facility that is clean and properly sanitized should have no problem meeting the regulation because the milk is sterile in the udder and the "fecal" coliform bacteria are picked up during or after milking. She said she didn’t think CA dairy consumers, raw or not, want fecal bacteria in their dairy products as there is no benefit to humans from coliform microbes to her knowledge. She did allow that lactic bacteria are very beneficial to humans, etc., etc.
We also talked a bit about healthy gut flora, individual health susceptibility, etc. So while she is clearly a "keep all microbes in our food to a minimum to prevent pathogen contamination" type of person, she had a high degree of appreciation for the role of healthy and benign bacteria in health.
She also said that when her dept wrote the initial recommendation for a coliform standard last year a legislation impact report (as is typically done) was included that indicated there would certainly be opposition from the two CA commercial raw dairies. So she said that she thinks Nicole Parra absolutely should have known about all of this (implying that Parra has said she wasn’t?). I am not up on all of those issues, though.
Near the end of our conversation, which also dealt with other issues about industrial food, food supply safety in general, CA agriculture, and my issue with the "anonymity of Trader Joe’s private label milk sources" (she helpfully told me how to decode the bottle plant code on the milk cartons), she stated that she didn’t know why there was such fuss coming about a regulation that assures clean processing practices and facilities. She stated over and over that any producer should be able to easily meet these regulations, at the bulk tank or the bottle. She also told me about her experience working with a small herd (35 head) dairyman and how clean and pristine his operation was (she didn’t say that she drank that milk, though – I should have asked). Near the end of our conversation she hinted that perhaps a frenzy of hysteria was being whipped up not over the actual regulation, but as a way to generate publicity and increased sales.
So while I have a dog in this fight (being primarily raw milk consumer simply because I choose it), I’m left still in the middle, unsure of how much this new coliform regulation is a "real issue" and how much is an exaggeration. I certainly do see that there is a lot of institutionalized and large industry opposition to availability to raw dairy, even if well regulated, both on the national and local level. And I do see that there are many threats to small producers of many foods, not just dairy, on many fronts. But I’m not a dairy or even a farm expert, nor am I a microbiologist, so I am having hard time figuring out exactly what the significance of this coliform standard really means to raw milk. Is it so hard to meet or is the very passionate opposition to it as much a principle about avoiding the "slippery slope". Or is it taking advantage of a regulation change to increase awareness of raw milk (I’m not necessarily implying that that is a bad thing). I’m not a "movement" leader, or perhaps even a movement member. But I sort of feel stuck in the middle, a bit put off by the "passion" and constant urgency of the raw milk movement leaders that email me with updates and urgings to contact the CA got officials, yet I’m not quite convinced that the government isn’t hostile to raw milk either.
I do appreciate the reasoned and informed comments on this blog from the wide range of people with an interest in raw milk, as well as David’s excellent reports (it’s clear I would make a lousy journalist – I can’t even decent source info).
You said that she told you that milk was "sterile in the udder", yet she then allowed that there are beneficial flora…the "good for your gut" microorganisms…in milk.
She cannot have it both ways. Is it sterile, devoid of bacteria, or does it have beneficial bacteria? It cannot be both ways.
The bottom line really isn’t about what is or is not in milk, and where does whatever is in milk come from anyway.
The bottom line is do we, as citizens of supposedly the freest country on earth, have the right to make our own nutritional choices, or should those choices be made by a nanny state?
The constitution that I read gives the government no such power to decide for us what we consume.
So…this whole war is less about what is or is not "safe", it is more about freedom of choice.
Completely doing away with all REQUIRED food standards leaves the folks who want to be protected by the state free to choose foods from producers who produce government sanctioned food products. Why cannot the rest of us have the same freedom to choose?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead…a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Also, re Steve’s comment, I checked the legislative history of AB1735 and it appears that it did go through to Appropriations in July. Anyone can go to leginfo.ca.gov and look up bills there, I’ve found it very useful.
That would suggest that MAYBE sending 1604 to Appropriations was just normal procedure and not in itself bias — if that’s true, then we as a community failed to anticipate something that was in the normal course of business for this bill. More disturbingly, if it’s true, then our professional consultants (lawyers, lobbyists) also failed to anticipate it — or did so but failed to notify us. Clearly we are learning about the need to avoid the Mission Accomplished thing. It ain’t over ’til the beefy guy signs.
Finally, I think I have figured out something about the coliform count — and again, I want those with technical background to check me out on this and tell me if I’m wrong. The coliform count was limited to 50 (bulk) at the hearing for health reasons, i.e., there are 3 pathogenic coliform species. However, all 3 of those species are included in specific pathogen testing that is routinely done on raw milk. I’m getting the idea from people that, if you’re not worried about pathogens, the count can easily be much, much higher, because it’s only at higher levels that it affects taste and smell (but still not health issue). Like, maybe something in the thousands. So, if pathogens are eliminated as an issue by the specific testing, there’s no reason to have an overall coliform count that low.
Do I have that right? I’m thinking Meg and Steve, but anyone who knows. I’d appreciate hearing assessments of this. Apparently Ron G. mentioned the pathogen testing at the hearing and members still insisted that the count be 50, which does seem maybe fishy.
And Anna, thank you very much for your report. I might just suggest that Kristen’s experience is probably all with industrial dairies for whom "sanitation" means pasteurization. She’s not a raw milk specialist. Also, coliforms are not "fecal" bacteria — they are found there, but they are also found on "surfaces" — all surfaces, including processing plant equipment — and vegation (Wikipedia), which cows eat. I just wiped my tabletop with my hand and picked up a lot of coliforms. It’s a very large group of bacteria, many of which are probiotic, 3 species pathogenic. But if we’re covered on those 3 by specific tests, the count is not being kept this low to keep us "safe." I think I’ve heard it could be in the 1000’s — 3000? 5000? Right?
Feedback? From people who know? Would appreciate it. One producer did speculate to me that a 50 count would make it hard for any new raw dairies to start up, small farms would have trouble meeting it.
Of course, if 1604 dies in committee, we’re back to 1735 and an impossible standard, and this discussion is moot.
To be continued.
Thank you everyone…
But then…what do I know? I’m just a dumb farmer…LOL.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead…owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
As noted earlier, standard plate counts for all bacteria have to be less than 20,000 under the PMO (federal model pasteurizing law) after pasteurizing. I think in California the limit is 15,000, for both raw and pasteurized. Coliform bacteria, a subset of all bacteria, are essentially early-warning indicators of dirty equipment where, for example, air is being pulled into suction lines (suction being how the cow is milked with modern milkers). As pointed out, air and all surfaces around us have coliform (with minimal amounts, we hope, of fecal coliform), so the 10 cfu limit simply boils down to something unnecessarily strict. The limit of 50 cfu, within the same order of magnitude, is not qualitatively different for the purposes intended (e.g., early warning of processing and equipment problems), but it is quantitatively different insofar as 50 is less likely to shut dairies down every other month. All of this assumes that pathogenic bacteria are separately and specifically tested-for, about which both of these dairies are quite careful. If your initial coliform counts are several orders of magnitude higher than 10/50, the issue boils down to shortened shelf life – and the need to track down leaks in the milking system, or poor hygiene in the daily wash-up of equipment.
If that is the case, then the email I received from the WAPF had a bit of hysterical "Chicken Little" tone, which may in fact be counter-productive.
I expect straight, accurate information from WAPF, too.
AuLait and Steve, thanks for your descriptions of the coliform issues. That is pretty much how I understood it, but I guess when I finally "caught a CFDA lion by the tail" on the phone this morning, my fairly newly acquired knowledge of the coliform details fled my mind. I can make my friends’ eyes glaze over with details about food production, but I am no match for people who deal with this on a day in-day out basis, no matter which side of the issue.
http://www.ethicurean.com/2008/01/24/california-raw-milk/
1. According to a representative in the office of Mark Leno (Chair of the Appropriations Committee), the passage of AB 1604 from the Agricultural Committee to the Appropriations Committee represented standard procedure. All bills and amendments, even if they save the state money, go through the Appropriations Committee as a matter of course.
How did it come to be, then, that todays vote was the culmination of a dirty tricks campaign perpetrated by Big Dairy and the CDFA? Do the parties pursuing remedies to the iniquities of AB 1735 not fully understand the legislative process? Was the lady I spoke to lying?
2. Furthermore, according to the person I spoke to in Mark Lenos office, AB 1604 was not voted on because it was taken off the agenda by the author (Nicole Parra).
3. The person that I next spoke to, in the office of Doug La Malfa (member of both the Appropriations Committee and the Agriculture Committee), confirmed that the Assembly Appropriations Committee did not vote on AB 1604 and the reason was that the author of the bill had taken it off the agenda last night (i.e., the evening of Wednesday, January 23, 2008) presumably before the e-mails from Organic Pastures and WAPF were sent out.
4. Both people I spoke to (above) told me that I could only get more information about where we stand with AB1604 by calling Nicole Parras office. So I did.
5. The person I first spoke to in Parras office told me that AB 1604 was never on the agenda for the Appropriations Committee in the first place and was surprised when I told him that Lenos office were telling a different story. He then told me that the person we should address our questions to regarding AB1604 was Derek Chernow (sp?) who was handling the matter for Nicole Parra. I left a voicemail message for Derek asking where we stood today with the progress of AB 1604 and asking him to get back to me to let me know what the next step is, when that next step takes place and who is involved.
When I have not received a response by tomorrow I will call again to try to get the answers to these questions. You can also have a chat with Derek by calling (916) 319-2030.
I think there was just confusion on the part of who did what and when. Your information is probably accurate but apparently Mark was under the impression that it was going to a hearing today. The email blast went out this morning and a list to media went out late last night (that David posted here).
For the Ethicurean article above, I talked to Mark and confirmed that it got yanked by Parra.
The Blue Ribbon Commission should be interesting.
Amanda
Animal – Milk & Dairy Food Safety dept at CDFA.
———
Bill Marler donates to International Food Safety Network
Fifteen years ago this week, Seattle lawyer Bill Marler and
Kansas State University professor Douglas Powell were drawn into the food safety arena when the Washington Department of Health announced that Jack in the Box restaurants were the source of a multi-state outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 infections. Now, the two are teaming up to further promote awareness of food safety.
Marler, who has represented thousands of victims of E. coli and other foodborne illness outbreaks since representing more than 100 victims of the Jack in the Box outbreak, has pledged to donate $25,000 to Powell’s group, the International Food Safety Network — iFSN — at Kansas State University. The group, which was formed in 1993 when Powell began researching the impact and influence of food safety information on farmers, processors, retailers, consumers and regulators, produces several electronic mailing lists to disseminate food safety information across the globe. In addition, Marler has pledged to match all other donations made to iFSN in 2008, up to $25,000.
In thanking Marler for the donation, Powell said, "All money donated to iFSN will be used to fund students in developing and carrying out a variety of projects. These will focus on the use of new media and new messages to compel individuals from farm-to-fork to take steps to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.
"Bill Marler is an outstanding advocate for food safety and understands that microbiologically safe food just doesn’t happen," said Powell. "Any lawyer can talk the talk. Bill walks the talk."
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 76 million Americans get sick and 5,000 die each and every year after consuming contaminated food and water. The Jack in the Box outbreak in the Pacific Northwest, which killed four and sickened over 600, was the tipping point for American public awareness of the risks posed by dangerous microorganisms in food.
Check it out: http://www.Marlerblog.com
Blog is titled "Well, I got my Raw Milk tshirt and button" Theres a link you can go to on that blog.
Happy reading all!!
Can you say double standard?
Obviously there is a large, complex story here and we do not have all the details. But I felt compelled to point this out because it seems so glaring.
I’m also skeptical that OP would have won a large judgment against CDFA for damage done to their business by the recall if their complaint were groundless. OP’s story was that 700 samples were taken and all came back negative, and the recall was lifted because of that. Don’t know much more factual details, would like to.
The sad truth is that there are many, many things those kids likely consumed that could have given them E. coli, but the moment one of them was linked to raw milk, investigators dropped all other possibilities and proceeded on the assumption the raw milk had to be the culprit. Doesn’t strike me as too scientific — especially given the history between raw milk folks and CDFA. Thus the "official" status of the report, sadly, also isn’t as impressive as it should be. Obviously, Marler has his own ax to grind as well. The more things change…
Bob Hayles
Wow Lisa, I got that from that lawyers blog you posted…I would think a lawyer would be better with his words. Such implication, and with no proof. Isn’t false accusation illegal? That paragraph is from the link in this post from the CDHCS. AND I can see why OP got restitution….I’d have gone after more from the state had it been me.
"However, the bottom line in a court of law is that raw milk, organic spinach, a Big Mac or a jar of Peter Pan are all treated equally."
http://www.marlerblog.com/rawmilk.PDF
His last statement appears to be in error also. As for the web site with the CDHCS the following is what I percieve as the jist:
It specifically states that of the 362 cows tested for the E coli 0157:H7, 5 were isolated of the composite samples AND further examination of the samples from individual cows from the positive composites yielded isolates from 3 cows. The PFGE and multiple=locus variable-number tandem repeat analysis (MLVA) patterns of these isolates differed from the outbreak patterns.
Therefore implicating OP in the e-coli outbreak was very false and an out right lie. Shame on the state.