How New Body-Bag Strategy on Raw Milk Racked Up a Dairy Industry Win in CA


Mary McGonigle-Martin and her son, ChrisThe late Aajonus Vonderplanitz used to tell me, when one or another state launched an unexpected campaign against raw milk, that he was never surprised. “Even if it seems they have moved on, they haven’t,” he explained on one occasion, after Wisconsin had renewed its campaign against raw dairy farmers back in 2008, following several years of quiet. “They can’t leave this issue alone. It will always be with us.” 


And so it has been. California, seemingly a liberal bastion for raw milk, renewed its campaign against small dairy farmers beginning in late 2008, when it went after Sharon Palmer’s goat farm in Ventura County, and then moved up the coast, using cease-and-desist letters from local prosecutors to try to intimidate a number of small dairies into abandoning their herdshare arrangements with neighbors. That campaign eventually culminated in two years of negotiations between dairy farmers and the California Department of Food and Agriculture, leading to the proposed Home Dairy legislation (AB2505) that seemed so promising. 


According to one report, the bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada, gave this assessment: “AB 2505 was strongly supported by the Community Alliance for Family Farms, the California Grange, and hundreds of individual small home dairy owners, but they couldn’t overcome opposition from the California Farm Bureau, Western United Dairymen and the California Medical Association.” Yamana should also have mentioned that the bill couldn’t overcome opposition from Mary McGonigle-Martin, the mother of a boy who was sickened by raw milk nearly eight years ago. 


Martin has become a Big-Dairy rock star, as her testimony about the suffering of her son, Chris, with Hemolytic Uremic Syndrome (HUS) has led to defeats of raw milk legislation in Nevada, Iowa and, now the biggest prize yet, California. After she concluded her California testimony, a member of the California Assembly committee hearing the legislation wondered aloud how anyone could serve raw milk to their children. This was the “body-bag strategy” I described earlier this month, in connection with proposed federal legislation on raw milk, in action.


Illinois might have been another notch on the belt for the Martin/Big-Dairy team except that state never got to the hearings stage about the state public health effort to ban raw milk sales in the state; such sales have long been legal direct from dairy farms. Outraged raw milk proponents short-circuited the process in Illinois by overwhelming their legislators with calls. The public health sabotage effort in Illinois grew out of nothing more than the Big Dairy/FDA-inspired tendency Vonderplanitz identified that goes something like this: Well, Illinois has been quiet, it’s close to Wisconsin and Minnesota, where we’ve been pushing hard against raw milk, so let’s go do some damage in a neighboring Big Ag state to farmers and consumers there by getting rid of raw milk. 


In the old days of fighting for raw milk in California back in the 1980s and 1990s, Vonderplanitz was accustomed to the regulators simply bringing in doctors and veterinarians to claim that raw milk was inherently unsafe. Kind of like what happened in Vermont last week, when the “experts” testified against a narrow piece of legislation that would allow Vermont’s two largest raw dairy producers to deliver product to customers at farmers markets.


Eileen Wolfe, a veterinarian testifying on behalf of the Vermont Veterinary Medical Association, went on and on at a Vermont House session about CDC data, Minnesota-study extrapolations (about 20,000-plus raw milk illnesses), etc., etc.  As for data out of Europe on raw milk’s benefits, based on studies involving more than 23,000 children showing reductions in asthma and allergies, well, that was “anecdotal” and “not crystal clear.”  


Even rabies, which has never been shown to be transmitted via raw milk, was a distinct possibility, in her obsessed mindset. “While transmission of rabies in milk has never been proven, such a scenario is impossible to disprove.” There you go. In the holy war logic, if it hasn’t been disproven, and it serves your argument, it must be true. 


“Offering milk at farmers’ markets and/or allowing for home delivery have intrinsic dangers relative to storage and transportation because of several factors. First, essentially all milk is contaminated, to greater or lesser degrees, on the farm level.”


I testified at that same Vermont hearing, trying to provide a sense of objectivity and perspective; I used data and examples to point out that children get very sick from all manner of foods, and that serious illness from raw milk is statistically quite rare. 


I wrote a few weeks ago that the legislative hearings on raw milk, even when they result in defeat, are important educational events for consumers everywhere. The fact that the dairy industry is resorting to the body-bag strategy is indicative of how seriously the industry takes this. 


As a few individuals noted in comments following my previous post, the California hearing last Wednesday helped educate many people about the depth of the opposition that the dairy industry and medical establishment are able to muster against raw milk.  The fact that they feel compelled to resort to the body-bag strategy shows quite clearly that we’re in the midst of an ever-more-bitter struggle.

Was Vonderplanitz correct that this struggle is never ending? Or might the dairy industry’s growing desperation indicate we’re closer to a climactic ending than we realize? Stay tuned. 



Leave a Reply

76 Comments on "How New Body-Bag Strategy on Raw Milk Racked Up a Dairy Industry Win in CA"

Notify of

Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
mark mcafee
April 14, 2014 4:50 pm

When a group of people take a stand and the government backs down….that is an act of political power and not an act of violence. When acts of violence are posed against the government, the government acts crazy and bring in SWAT teams. That has been the tradition.

Do not get me wrong….I am a huge advocate for freedom. I just want to win and not die in the process of the ultimate win for freedom. I have been arround long enough to know what wins arguments.


These are the final crazy days of the “100 years of pasteurization”. This is what the crumbling of the mountain of lies looks like. Pasteurization is not going away any time soon, but it will no longer be viewed as the sole remedy and treatment process for milk and especially fluid milk. You can pasteurize milk all you want, but if it does not sell….it is done!!

Kristen P
April 14, 2014 4:50 pm

BWAHAHAHAAAAA! “Martin has become a Big-Dairy rock star” I wonder where her millions of $$$, her mansion in the Bahamas, and all of her groupies are? Sorry, Gumpert, but that made me LOL.

April 14, 2014 10:08 pm

Michael Totten has a piece, “Letter from Cuba: To Embargo or Not” at Here is a comment, a quote: ”Not only should we not have normal relations with repressive regimes, it is our moral obligation to ensure, by whatever means possible save for military action, that we in no way promote, fund, assist, ignore, or legitimize said repressive regimes.” These are the words of Cuban exile Valentin Prieto.

What about us? When faced with the repressive elements of government, City, County, State, Federal here in these United States perhaps we should consider it our moral obligation to ensure, by whatever means possible save for military action, that we in no way promote, fund, assist, ignore, or legitimize said repressive regimes.

Does that cover the bases?

If the repressers are given free rein maybe we’ll end up like this (again from Totten):
“I heard no end of horror stories about soap shortages, both before and after I got there. A journalist friend of mine who visits Cuba semi-regularly brings little bars of hotel soap with him and hands them out to his interview subjects.

“They break down in tears when I give them soap,” he told me. “How often does that happen?” I said. “A hundred percent of the time,” he said.”

Regardless of the repressers’ bloviating ways, repression will take us to that place eventually. Let’s not have the next generation(s) of Americans wake up in conditions like that because we didn’t push back for all we’re worth.

All the best,
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard

April 15, 2014 3:19 am

Did Ms. M.M. Martin sue the actual producer of the raw milk which allegedly sickened her son? I’m sure I could find this out by going back into your archives, but asking here seemes quicker. Demanding accountability from that particular milk producer seems far more logical than going on a crusade against every raw milk farmer in the country! Which causes me to muse on the possibility that MMM is serving as a “useful idiot” for industrial dairy. I understand the incredible horror she has gone through, but this doesn’t give her license to run other people’s lives. She was, IMO, unwise to buy raw milk from a place without visiting it first but we’re accustomed to believing our food supply is completely safe. Too much so, actually. I recently nearly swallowed a sharp piece of metal embedded in a pork cut my family was eating. It could easily have been in my 4-year-old’s mouth-just chance that it was in mine. Supermarket pork, unfortunately (blame hubby here!), thus NO ACCOUNTABILITY. The employees at the store were horrified when my husband told them, but were helpless. Had it been beef from my local farmer, I can promise it would have been a different story.

April 15, 2014 3:36 am

Mark, I live in a state where it is illegal to buy raw milk, so I go over the border. Technically speaking, if the food police wanted to, they could raid my house, bring in Social Services, arrest me for endangering the welfare of my children, smuggling a dangerous substance, SS could remove my kids under all kinds of pretexts (example, my daughters all share a room, and it’s messy, my kids are unvaxxed, I homeschool, etc.) I would immediately be depicted as a lunatic fringe wacko, like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and the like. Mind you, I wouldn’t have to grab for a gun, either. Look at Justina Pelletier. All her parents did was disagree with the “experts” at Boston Children’s Hospital and refuse to genuflect. My point is that being concerned with how we look to the system cogs is unimportant, and compromising with them is short-sighted. We regular citizens all need to put differences aside and join together in an organized way.

mark mcafee
April 15, 2014 4:28 am

David, the reason I say we have all the laws we need in CA is the following. Cow Shares are not defined. Three cows or less is not a dairy.

All producers need to do is be very safe and be able to prove two things: they never sell to the public and their RAMP plans and testing is rock solid. That is it.

May seem simple, but if raw milk is never sold and everything is safe, I do not think that there will be much enforcement incentive and perhaps no authority for enforcement action either.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 15, 2014 5:07 am


She sued Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures raw dairy. If I recall, there was a undisclosed settlement. I don’t believe the E Coli strain was found in her son, he was the only one without it (the whole story in her own words is or was on this blog), it was ASSUMED to have come from Organic Pastures milk. Plus, I don’t remember the exact wording, she had posted on this blog something to the effect that the ER docs gave her son antibiotics and that resulted in the HUS IMO. Her story on this blog sounded as if the doctors gave substandard care, many questionable practices. I never heard if the hospital/healthcare people were sued. It would be cheaper to go after Mark than the hospital and doctors. Hospitals and doctors malpractice suits can take many years to be resolved and costs can be quite high from both sides.

mark mcafee
April 15, 2014 6:15 am


Years passed after Sept 2006 before the lawsuit was brought by our dear lawyer friend Bill Marler on behalf of Mary Martin and her son. It was the classic professionally executed intimidation lawsuit going after easy deep insurance pockets.

When retail raw milk is sold, it must have comprehensive liability insurance. The insurance policy says that the insurance company owns the liability and therefore make the decisions on settlement. Insurance companies want certainty. They do not want jury trials and questionable outcomes.

I can argue all day long about why OPDC raw milk may or may not have been the origin of her sons illness. That is water under the bridge of raw milk history. Two things came from that chapter: I learned that truly progressive raw milk food safety innovations had to become part of our brand and operations and RAWMI was borne. 2…Mary became the very effective FDA ” go to mom” to testify against raw milk all over the USA.

Yes….our liability policy settled the case for undisclosed terms. The insurance was also renewed at a lower price the next year, with rates lower every year since because of our risk management program…RAMP and RAWMI and test results.

After all of that, Mary and I have come to respect one another and both want the same things: safe raw milk for consumers that make that choice. From adversity can come greatness. It is what you do with adversity that counts.

mark mcafee
April 15, 2014 6:35 am

One more thing….the illnesses precipitated a change in CA raw milk law. AB1735 passed with out a hearing and resulted from CDFA quietly placing the words “less than 10 coliforms” into law in CA. At first I was convinced that it was he end of legal raw milk, but after much investigation and some innovation, less than ten has become secret sauce that reduces the risk of ecoli 0157h7 contamination by a huge factor of safety.

Amanda Rose
April 15, 2014 6:37 am

Quote: “Two things came from that chapter: I learned that truly progressive raw milk food safety innovations had to become part of our brand and operations and RAWMI was borne. 2…Mary became the very effective FDA ” go to mom” to testify against raw milk all over the USA.”

And in between the 2006 outbreak and the birth of RAWMI, a number of other things happened: OPDC outsourced from mega-dairies to serve its growing market, it fought against the state’s coliform legislation, and it had more outbreaks. I believe it even got its cows certified organic in that time frame….

It’s extremely easy to find raw milk in California from micro farms who are so far under the radar they will never be a blip on the CDFA screen if they know how to clean a teat. Californians would do well to find those sources and just cut through the rest of the BS

aka “Foxy”

Amanda Rose
April 15, 2014 6:38 am

I think you’ve only had one outbreak of 0157:H7 since then, Mark, so you may be right.

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 16, 2014 11:37 am

My wife is aware that I am somewhat passionate about healthy foods and our right to choose, and sent me these links. Public awareness is certainly on the rise so pass it on and participate it will snowball.

Ken Conrad
Ken Conrad
April 16, 2014 11:38 am

Thanks David.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 1:45 pm

The bearded guy is BLM Special Agent Daniel P. Love, I think he was in charge that day

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 1:45 pm

Elderberryjam you have been missed!

April 16, 2014 1:56 pm

Fabulous article David. I also very much appreciate Mark’s comment. I agree that public officials will always vote for safety. And no one will spend the time to dig into “what means safe?” “what means better?” We have to do that work. No politician is going to fund a study to look into it for us. It was mothers that had to bring back breast milk as a superior way to feed infants. Now the government actually prints posters recommending exclusive breast feeding through 6 months to lessen the risk of asthma and digestive distress. I’ve seen them hanging in doctors offices.

Mark stresses a need for very low bacterial count as the way to save the raw milk day. This may be at the heart of why Aajonus thought the issue is here to stay. Some of the best milk on the planet has bacterial counts that would not pass the needs of a high production environment. Our bodies are teaming with all sorts of strains of live bacteria and so are all great foods. But when you want to produce high quantities of milk, to create a growing business, the methods you employ typically involve increasing the chemical and sanitizer use in the milking equipment, to get the bacterial count down. Of course quick refrigeration will also play a key role.

I agree with Mark that if we have no problems — we have no problems. If producers keep quality high and no one has an issue, then we as the raw milk drinking community wont have a problem. But small producers have a major role to help consumers re-connect back to the land. Small producers can maintain safety even when the milk is naturally high with bacteria. Small producers have a role to play in providing safe milk, that has all the benefits of the live bacteria that naturally comes with well produced fresh fluid milk. The milk must come from “healthy animals,” to quote my friend and master nutritionist, Jim Marlow.

Raw milk’s main purpose is to teach people that bacteria is not bad. Bacteria is life. Most people who begin to work with raw milk in their diet, find it opens a pathway to understanding their bodies in new ways. They often begin to experiment with fermented dairy, fermented vegetables, and other non main stream foods. All the new main stream research is pointing to the idea that gut bacteria health is a critical component of health. We wont mention that the Greek’s knew this before the time of Christ. Some of us take a while to learn things. Small producers naturally regulate themselves, because if they dont, they are out of business the next day.

I do want to see raw milk in retail environments. And that will need to come from larger producers who can minimize the bacterial counts as their main objective to satisfy “the safety” people. But if we make the mistake of applying these rules to the little guys, we re-create the system, we’re trying to correct. Small local producers, like artisan cheese makers need protection. They cant make the money that larger companies will, when raw milk thrives in the future. And many of them wont even try. They are happy supplying a great product to a small base and keeping a limited community happy — just like a small vegetable producer.

D. Smith
D. Smith
April 16, 2014 2:31 pm

@ SheilaD: Exactly. This is what the State of SD just did to our small producers. They took a page from the big producers book and want to make the small producers follow the same protocol. No small farmer is going to spend upwards of $300,000 to make “improvements” to a 3 cow dairy operation. Not even to a 30 cow dairy operation. No one around here has any intention of milking 400+ cows because they don’t believe it’s the way things should be done.

Consequently, since the brainless twits from our Dairy & Egg board don’t seem to have the sense God gave a goldfish, we are straddling between either having no raw milk to drink or breaking the law to get it. I have done neither, but have switched over to goat milk for now. But their ridiculous regulations put quite a few families in jeopardy, as far as taking away a good portion of their livelihood.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 3:03 pm

Very well stated Sheila!

April 16, 2014 3:03 pm

Mr Gumpert
In response to your comment that you hope Ms Martin might change to become more positive about the availability of unpasteurized milk, I have a question.
Why should she?
This is a contest in activism. Ms Martin obviously believes her son’s health was damaged because she gave him raw milk. I think she was led into doing so because of material she read that did not alert her sufficiently to the risk that might be involved. In her position, I think it would be normal to be ‘negative’ about this for the rest on one’s life.
And so, she’s an activist, just as most contributors to this blog are activists. Ms Martin has the same right to oppose you as you have to oppose her.
My second question then is, do you ever think you should change your mind?

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 3:05 pm

A few years back, that is what the state of California is/was trying to force on the cow shares. They essentially would be regulating them out of business.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 3:20 pm

It is not a contest, it is an invasion of my life. It is not a game. She, as others, are forcing their beliefs on others.

Due diligence, isn’t that what lawyers tell people? Perhaps she didn’t do hers well. Any company selling any product is going to tout how great their product is. Only a fool would not research for facts and weight their options. The gov has had their propaganda on their web sites for years, I cannot imagine someone with her education level did not research any of those sites. She did her due diligence and made her choice.

Since the doctors gave her son antibiotics (didn’t she say another doc explicitly stated in the chart NOT to give antibiotics?) thus highly likely leading to HUS and damage to her son, no one will ever know what the outcome could have been. Plus he didn’t have the so called “E coli”. Too many unanswered questions and suppositions.

She opposes all raw dairy consumption. Her opposition aids in preventing me from consuming what I want to consume.

mark mcafee
April 16, 2014 3:54 pm

On a brighter fun subject, the 2014 OPDC ” Camping with the Cows” event on May 3rd is booked solid. We have 520 signed up for the over night event and more signing up everyday. If you build it they will come….or perhaps, “if you noursish them…they will come”. This is our third year!!

This is a free event…but we are going to ask for RAWMI donations. After all, one of the biggest reasons that OPDC is doing so well, is the planned safety refinements that come as a direct result of being LISTED the hard work of “OPDC Team RAMP”. We will be introducing our RAMP team to the CWTC visitors as one of our planned events. We will also have tours, free raw milk, milk chugging contest, bon fires, and several teaching stations to learn about what it takes to produce raw milk at OPDC from Grass to Glass.

Gonna be fun!!! 500 people wow!! That is huge!!! Bigger than huge…it makes me emotional.

April 16, 2014 4:52 pm

Let’s be clear here, Mr.John. Ms. Martin is putting children’s lives at risk herself, because she’s busy promoting the creation of a black market. Legalize raw milk and you can provide training to farmers. Legalize raw milk and farmers can (and will) take samples to laboratories to be tested.

Make it illegal as it is here in Canada, and many good farmers who want to get their milk tested do not dare try, as how do you know that the lab won’t report you to the health authorities, CFIA, or the milk marketing board for even existing? How can you get training as a farmer, when almost other farmers are “underground” due to fear of being found out? How can consumers truly “choose” a good farm when they have hunted for years to find a farm and, finally finding one, choose it out of desperation that they may not find any other? How can there be a process to “weed out” unscrupulous operators who don’t care about raw milk best practices and sell unsafe industrial (IPP = intended for pasteurization and processing) milk “out the back door” of their industrial dairies?

Never-mind that the children with asthma, allergies, and autism who could be helped by raw milk are not able to access it. But, oh I forgot, those are automatically just “anecdotes” and “myths” when parents report any benefits, right? Whereas all reports of illness are automatically “outbreaks” and “statistics.” I sense a double-standard here.

D. Smith
D. Smith
April 16, 2014 6:00 pm

Food rights and food freedoms obviously don’t mean anything to MrJohn. He would appear to be either a dumpster-diver, a fast phood junkie, or an off-the-grocery-store-shelves boxed food eater. If not, food freedoms are soon going to become important to him.

Shawna Barr
April 16, 2014 6:04 pm

Shelly, in my experience, your assessment of what happens in black-market raw milk culture is accurate. Farmers who are afraid are less likely to access lab services, veterinary services, and training. The underground culture does not lead to safety or better practices.

Ironically, at the hearing last week, it was Mary Martin who offered some of the only positive suggestions to the proposed AB 2505 bill. I listened to her speak, she did not dismiss the bill out of hand as most of the opposition did, but rather specifically said she would like to see a bill that included required farmer training on pathogen risks and protocols for management.

That is much more than was offered by others in the opposition. There is much work to be done yet in California where small herd raw milk production is concerned.

Ken Conrad
Ken Conrad
April 16, 2014 6:51 pm

Well said Silvia!

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 16, 2014 6:53 pm

They all have closed minds towards raw diary. Keeping it on the black market only ensures that any training will be minimal if at all. Shame on those ignorant people, they are contributing to the potential for “outbreaks”.

We all know it is not about safety, so is it a control issue? Along with a money issue?

jack brody
April 16, 2014 7:12 pm

Being a small farmer my self and managing a small co-operative of members I am impressed with how other farmers find the time to participate so much in the ongoing communications around raw milk. It seems so essential to keep abreast with all the details, but it just overwhelms me most of the time. The powers over the courts is somewhat problematic but also has an effect of loosing the trust of the people when they are abused in such ways where sentence is laid where insufficient proof has been demonstrated, instead laid by proxy of the positions of interested parties. So it seems to me that such actions of the courts can not be made the norm, or else loose all trust of the people. In the back end of the courts is often such considerations (from my conversations with lawyer friends who also work for the crown). The point I am getting at is that the courts could execute tarnished sentences, Yes, but not always, and more so rarely. So it is wise to point them out to the courts, so that the next volley of court hearings could go another way and save the court itself the trust of the people. The other thing I would like to mention. It seems to me, that RAWMILK is all too often portrayed and fought for in such a manner as to declare it safe. the declaration of it being safe is exactly what opens one up to a lawsuit when somewhat gets sick, however that may be. Instead, it is far wiser for a raw milk producer or associated agent to declare it unsafe to consume without pastuerization, and give instructions. or rather to post the position of the health authority and give pastuerization instructions. So rather then attempt to prove its healthy and good for you, fight to be able to access it in its pure form to do as you wish, with the knowledge of the position of the public agent and recommended treatment. I know of one producer that goes so far as to ensure that cow share owners are aware of this by making them first correctly answering a test. By answering a test where other wrong answers (particularly those wrong answers that could be brought to court, if no such test were created) are available the consumer of raw milk could not then claim then did not know or were not informed and so forth. So while such processes could take place to offset the risks of liability and keep the arrangment in the private realm, it is still wise to subscribe to best practices that will ensure the highest quality milk.

mark mcafee
April 16, 2014 7:57 pm


While having a test that shows that the owner of the cow knew and was informed of risk, does not stop the media from “making raw milk a front page bad news story”. When the media perpetuates this bad news…that is the basis of all the arguments against raw milk and fuels the FDA and industry etc.

In fact, there was a case of illness from raw milk very recently where the dairyman had no compulsion to be safe, because he had a warning label and had warned everyone that the product was probably dangerous. This is not anyway to build a market or give anyone a sense of confidence.

In fact…there should be a morals, ethics and basic knowledge test for raw milk producers and not the consumers. This would prove to the consumers that the producers know what the heck he or she is doing. At present…we have ignorant producers selling and producing raw milk to very ignorant and uneducated consumers. Sad on all sides. How do I know….I get calls all week long from consumers asking about what they should know about their producers. The questions are scary!! Really scary. Like…

1. does raw milk need to be chilled?
2. are there ways to test raw milk for bad bacteria in my home…I have an EPT, will that work? LOL…
3. is manure safe to eat? I found some in my raw milk this morning ( this call from out of state cow share )
4. my raw milk tastes really bad….is it ok to give to my kids. ( also out of state cow share )

You just can not make this stuff up!!!

High quality raw milk producer training is absolutely key!!
In fact, it is so critical that I am of the opinion that retail (or public accessible ) producers of raw milk should be required to have some sort of permit that confirms that they have recieved some level of training and participate in some form of continuing education program.
Ignorance is not safe or free…ignorance is just plain stupid. The more calls I take, the more I truly believe that our educational system is truly broken and a high school diploma means nothing~!

D. Smith
D. Smith
April 16, 2014 8:21 pm

Yes, but the consumers need to be educated, as well as the producers, wouldn’t you say?

Too many consumers don’t know what questions to ask when searching out/looking for a raw milk source. That indicates a high level of ignorance or else a simple case of being a newbie to the market. They have to start their education somewhere.

I don’t know that actually testing the consumers is the key to this, but certainly a producer should have the right to make sure the consumer understands the basics about raw milk. What I don’t understand is why aren’t the consumers (like the ones who called you) asking these questions of their producers at the time of purchase???

jack brody
April 16, 2014 11:41 pm

Easy now Mark,’
from the perspective a someone offering raw milk to the public and having a vested interest in securing that position I could certainly understand how you might hold that position. But from the stand point of securing the the ability to act freely within a public space means that the responsibility must be born by those that do the acting. There is no freedom with out responsibility, and the moment we say that someone other then me is responsible for my well being is the exact moment we have forfeited our right and freedoms. So, I believe it is quite sound within the context of such freedoms for a raw milk purchaser (because… just because it was purchased raw does not mean it can’t be cooked) to opening take a test where they themselves might choose and answer that states that “it is possible that the milk being produced and purchased may be contaminated with pathogens that may cause illness , such as…may contain blood or puss and bodily fluids of the bovine, and fragments of manure, all of which may demonstrate the milk to be considered unfit for human consumption and that there is no guarantees made for the quality or purity of the milk” . an then other such options that bear a different legal responsibility. For how else might someone opt out of public protection? and where there is no opting out of public protection or then there is no freedom. If you Mark, are going to speak about the private and public realm then I certainly hope that you know what your talking about and the real implications. That said, at some point it may be a conflict of interest for you to act in any executive role with RAWMI and there will be a time when stepping down is warranted

mark mcafee
April 17, 2014 5:07 am


Stepping down from RAWMI? Kind of like asking a mom to give her child up for adoption. Not anytime soon….

Jack….I will support your fight for freedom, and you should support my efforts towards pioneering the technology and science of low risk raw milk production for all Americans. Both of our roles are complimentary. However….I see time and time again that when the frustration of freedom over powers the obligation of safety things break and go south in a hurry.

I will make you a deal….you fight for food freedom and I will fight for and teach raw food safety and will meet you at the crossroads of both freedom and excellence in raw milk safety and increased access …both in tact.

Both efforts are important. One last thing to be said….freedom means little when kids get sick.

That is when food safety absolutely kicks ass over food freedom….just sayin reality is reality. I live and breathe this fight every day….I know exactly what drives progress. A track record of raw milk excellence is the greatest foundation for future freedoms!! The reverse is a short lived constitutional intoxication.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 17, 2014 12:25 pm

I realize this link is about vaccines. I posted it because it gives clues to the govs mindset.

“T#: Parents don’t always understand the risk of not vaccinating. Stories from affected families can help educate them. #abcDrBchat”

The above statement speaks volumes. Scare tactics. It could be countered with stories from those affected from vaccines.

“Lifetime risk of dying from a car crash: 1 in 65. We drive anyway. Risk of severe life threatening rxn 2 vaccine: 1 in 1 million”

Not sure what their reason is for minimizing reactions. Guess it doesn’t matter unless you are that one in a million, then where does that leave you? Dead of permanently disabled.

“To increase acceptance of vaccines, we need to focus less on coercive measures & more on (re)gaining trust – ”

They know they lost trust. Could be because many are reading the package inserts and the internet tells the bad reaction stories. Giving the drug companies immunity from being sued dose bring trust.

“I don’t think we should force people to vaccinate-but we should force people to learn and think before declining. ”

Force? Really? Using that word will toss up walls, fools.–abc-news-health.html

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 17, 2014 12:27 pm

Should be: * Dead or permanently disabled.

mark mcafee
April 17, 2014 2:45 pm

Cornell Study finds….29% of Fluid pasteurized white milk thrown away by kids!! when chocolate was banned from school lunch choice. We are a sugared-up nation of fat kids and fat parents whose taste buds have been evolved to no longer eat whole foods but eat sugar. Immune systems and BMI ( body mass indexs ) have followed the trend into the hole.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 17, 2014 5:02 pm

Seems if parents tell their kids “no” or discipline them, the kids may be taken away and/or the parents end up in jail. What are they to do?

I remember when mine were young, we were at the grocery store and some kid was having a temper tantrum on the floor, all because mommy told him he could not have candy. The comments coming from the by-standers ranged from “good mom” to “horrid mean mom”. My son, looked and me and said, “If we behaved that way, you would have knocked us into next week and we would be stuck in the house for a long time”. Some things just aren’t acceptable behavior.

I think the TV and media brainwashes kids and others to an extent. If you keep pounding things into peoples brains, they will accept it as truth. An example; Many think cheerios are healthy. Yuck. I don’t know why people don’t investigate or why they take certain web sites/entities as absolute truth. I guess I was lucky, my mom pushed us to think outside the box and to think for ourselves.

Ken Conrad
Ken Conrad
April 17, 2014 5:44 pm

Rather then discipline defiant students today, they dope them up with drugs such as Ritalin.

No food was wasted in the cafeteria at the private boys high school I attended and if anyone were caught throwing food out that individual would be promptly dealt with in no uncertain terms.


Gayle Loiselle
Gayle Loiselle
April 17, 2014 6:41 pm

Jack and Mark, your exchange embodies the essence of the raw milk debate – ultimately, who is responsible for providing a safe food supply? Is it the state, the fed, the farmer, the distributor, the seller, the teacher, the consumer, the parent…who?? For me, it’s fairly simple, the answer is all of the above. Every person and food related organization of any kind shares that responsibility, it’s just a matter of degree.

Try as you might, you can’t regulate conscience and you can’t force integrity. I can’t on the face of it trust farmers, supermarkets, or the government. In the end it’s on my shoulders, it’s my responsibility to keep myself safe, and to teach my children to keep themselves safe – the constitution gives me that right. “…life, liberty…freedom from tyranny…you all remember that from high school, right? Well with all that comes responsibility, and risk.

There are risks with both freedom and safety; as Sheila pointed out above, the freedom to drink low bacteria raw milk sold retail brings the risk of exposure to higher levels of potentially toxic cleaners and sanitizers. The freedom to drink less sanitized small farm raw milk brings the risk of higher bacteria counts, the freedom to drink pasteurized milk brings the risk of drug residues, growth hormones, and even higher levels of chemical cleaners; in the end I have to make a choice and take responsibility for my own actions, the freedom to do that should not be at risk.

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 17, 2014 10:57 pm

I agree ken. Way too many kids and adults are on drugs (oops it’s called medication- which is correct, they are medicated)

mark mcafee
April 17, 2014 11:32 pm

One thing I think ( at least I hope ) we can all agree, THIS STORY GOES ON THE REALLY STUPID and PARANOID LIST!!!

Who is going to police the fish and all the ducks and tell them to stop crapping and urinating in the water reservoirs arround America!! It is no wonder our immune systems are destroyed!

I actually can not believe that they did this. Send that water to CA…you paranoid idiots!!

Sylvia Gibson
Sylvia Gibson
April 18, 2014 12:19 am

The powers that be at their finest! Did you catch this statement: “The open reservoirs hold water that has already been treated and goes directly into mains for distribution to customers.” All that wild flavored water going straight to homes, yum!

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 18, 2014 1:04 pm

Gayle, there are times when someone says exactly what you were thinking but couldn’t put into the right words. This is one of those times and I thank you if I may quote you:

“you can’t regulate conscience and you can’t force integrity. I can’t on the face of it trust farmers, supermarkets, or the government. In the end it’s on my shoulders, it’s my responsibility to keep myself safe, and to teach my children to keep themselves safe – the constitution gives me that right. “…life, liberty…freedom from tyranny…you all remember that from high school, right? Well with all that comes responsibility, and risk……. in the end I have to make a choice and take responsibility for my own actions, the freedom to do that should not be at risk.”

Talk about cutting to the chase, you’ve done it. Don’t blame, shame in not out.

Anything else I could possibly say isn’t necessary and would likely detract from the impact so I won’t. Have a great fruit.

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 18, 2014 1:59 pm

Unless you are the boy in the bubble you will be exposed to mary, (oops subliminal slip) MANY evolving micro scoping dangers in your food. ~ ancient Portuguese proverb “what doesn’t kill you will make you stronger.”

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 18, 2014 2:46 pm

Fools is a great word, as is force and trust. Those that look in the mirror know who they are or get paid to turn the other way.

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 18, 2014 3:05 pm

Sylvia the solution is bovious, and it’s the principle our government operates under in order to terrify them to pacivity. The box became a lot bigger in internet age but when you consider a toddler’s perception today facing decades of propagnda it’s even scarier. Who controls your mind or theirs ?

Ora Moose
Ora Moose
April 18, 2014 3:19 pm

To sum it up, discipline is a self directed thing you either inherited or didn’t. Do what you think is right and hope for the best but make an effort to get as much true info as you can.

Gayle Loiselle
Gayle Loiselle
April 18, 2014 5:00 pm

Just to play what if – what would happen if everyone exercised their right to earn personal income off the natural resources on public lands? Doesn’t public land imply it is for the benefit of us all? 150 years ago there was more land to go around, but even then it was a battle between native peoples, sheep grazers, and cattle grazes. Not too sure it’s a good idea that public lands should be a financial asset for so few. Times have changed…and this issue needs redefining based on today’s realities, the same as raw milk and pasteurization. But no, I am absolutely not defending the actions of the BLM and who ever gave the orders. Transparency and open thoughtful dialogue is called for, not steeling the other kids marbles because he’s a better player.

May 7, 2014 6:58 pm

Here’s another song to help the cause, with complementary artwork on cardboard I recycled. This is in one of the ancient musical keys I have recovered, it’s shamanic so gets better if you replay it: