Like others here, I’ve been fascinated by the back-and-forth between Steve Bemis and Bill Marler following my previous post.

In business situations, executives generally hand things over to the lawyers to hammer out details after the parties have come to a general agreement. In this situation, things seems reversed, as it’s the lawyers who are seeking a general agreement of principles.

I hope they’ll continue, maybe save everyone else a lot of work, maybe even prove wrong my prediction in the previous post about the possibilities for an accommodation. That’s one prediction I would love to be wrong about. I certainly admire their persistence. And I admire Bill Marler’s willingness to take a lot of barbs in several recent exchanges he’s had with bloggers here, and stay reasonably cool and provide succinct responses.

Having said all those nice things, though, I’m going to express my own personal concerns about where this is heading. I’m going to express them more with the hope of inspiring some new Great Thoughts or Great Insights than to sabotage anything.

One concern I have is that we don’t wind up ratcheting down from what already exists in the world of raw milk. By pushing to limit raw milk sales from farms, implementation of Bill Marler’s proposal would lead to worse availability of raw milk in a number of states like Maine, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Washington, and California.  And it would restrict distribution in places like Vermont and New Hampshire, which have broadened availability, such as through some retail sales (NH) and direct delivery to customers (VT). (Though it seems Marler has softened his approach some, saying, “I think I would concede that retail sales and oversight is working in states like WA and CA. My preference, however, is for direct farmer to consumer sales with regulation and inspection.”)

A second concern, I have, and this one is more difficult to articulate, but maybe the best way to say it is that I don’t get a good feeling that Marler’s heart is in the right place. I say that not to question his motives, but rather as an observation of his actions and tone. Generally, when someone from the majority, or ruling class, reaches out to a minority to try to reach an accommodation, it’s because the majority representative has had some inspiration of feelings of empathy—an understanding of the injustice being perpetrated on the minority, for example. In this case, it might be that regulators are beating up on farmers in a number of locales. The reason this is important is that the majority representative needs to be able to “sell” whatever is negotiated to other members of the majority—in this case, the public health and agriculture regulator community.

While Marler sounds reasonable in his back-and-forth with Bemis, I can’t find much evidence of empathy or understanding—in fact, quite the opposite. To my knowledge, he has opposed every single legislative push for a loosening of regulations on raw milk and other foods. He opposed SB 201 in California, the Food Freedom Act in Wyoming, and, now, the proposed raw milk legislation in Wisconsin.

And he is an ardent supporter of the food safety legislation pending in Congress, which will likely put many small food producers out of business by requiring expensive compliance and heavy-duty FDA oversight.

There’s a famous saying, “Don’t judge me by what I say, judge me by what I do.” So while I like what Bill Marler is saying to Steve Bemis, and his language in opposing the Wisconsin raw milk legislation is softer than usual, I have difficulty imagining him “selling” any agreement to his allies in the regulator community, who are going to be completely skeptical, at best, of any kind of “concessions” to the raw milkies. When they say, “Bill, have you lost your mind?” what’s he going to say? I hope he wouldn’t say, “Listen, I’ve come up with a way to keep them boxed in. We haven’t given them more than they already have in most states, and we can always find something either in the labeling or the inspection protocols or whatever to oppose liberalization and tie things up.”

I’m not asking for Marler to change his stripes, but rather to think more about the psychological and emotional overlay of this whole raw milk situation. There’s been a lot of alienation and even a sense of betrayal in much of what’s happened in the last few years. That doesn’t just disappear with a few nice words.

***

Speaking of betrayal, the Whole Foods betrayal of raw milk doesn’t show signs of turning around any time soon. Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., reports that he didn’t get good vibes from a conference call he had with officials of the chain Tuesday. While national raw milk standards for the chain are promised in a few weeks, there’s no indication of how the standards will be developed. He also says his request for Whole Foods to set up a California complaint line about raw milk was refused, ostensibly so all efforts can be devoted to coming up with new standards.

“We are preparing for a life without Whole Foods,” and the 52 stores that stocked it, says McAfee. “This is a bed they made for themselves. Yet we are constructively hoping that Whole Foods will have raw milk back. In either event…we will have grown in the market as a result. Independent markets love our products.” He says six independent stores have taken on Organic Pastures raw milk, and existing stores are selling more than before.

And you gotta love this. John Mackey, Whole Foods’ CEO, has a new article out on the “high trust organization.” No mention of all the trust created by staying with raw milk.