Will Herdshares Be “Legalized” in CA? CDFA’s Chief Vet Expresses Optimism About Continuing Negotiations; False Alarm on Brucellosis in MA

There are any number of reasons why the negotiations over herdshares taking place in California—between owners of small dairies and the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture-- over the last few months should not work.

Many tiny dairies dispensing raw goat’s or cow’s milk through such operations feel as a matter of principle that they shouldn’t have to negotiate a right that is already theirs—the right to contract with neighbors and friends for milk and other dairy and food products.

Even if they aren’t so principled, many shy away from making their presence known to the CDFA. They figure that no matter what comes out of these discussions—even the least onerous regulatory structure—they’d rather not be on any more government agency lists than are necessary. Assuming the CDFA never gives them trouble, who knows what other authorities the agency may send their way.

Those that are open to negotiation and regulation worry that it’s nearly impossible for the regulators to be fair. So against raw milk are most of the regulators, in this view, there is no way they will negotiate in good faith.

Dr. Annette Whiteford of the California Department of Food and AgricultureDespite all these obstacles, CDFA’s chief veterinarian and director of animal health and food safety services, Annette Whiteford, is optimistic a workable solution can be found to the issue—an issue that only became an issue when the CDFA began issuing cease-and-desist orders last year against small dairies operating herdshares. 

“There seems to actually be quite a bit of common ground and I think we will find some compromise solutions,” she explained in an email response to several questions I posed.    “Our goal is to have some sort of a tangible result in the near future.  We are staying focused on ‘doable’ objectives.”

The small dairies involved in the negotiations are less enthusiastic than the chief veterinarian. Michael Foley, a member of the herdshare negotiating group and a small farm owner worries about the “the onerous facilities requirements that have accumulated in California, while retaining testing and inspection requirements.”

Whiteford acknowledges that the legal status of herdshares in California is a murky issue. “First of all, there is nothing ‘illegal’ about a ‘herdshare.’  In fact, in California, unlike most states, raw milk is legal. We are trying to find out exactly what currently regulated food safety standards cannot be met by very small dairies, some of which are operated as herdshares or under boarding agreements.  We are in the process of listening to suggestions from small dairy herd owners, public health officials and other interested parties related to how best to increase access to products from these small farms while ensuring that public health is maintained. “

Prime among the suggestions being offered by small dairies that are part of the working group is that the state exempt from any regulation dairies with some small number of goats or cows—perhaps three or fewer.

Says Foley,: “Our proposals include an exemption from regulation for very small operations -- the ‘family cow’ exemption, paralleling exemptions in a number of states; an exemption for herdshare arrangements, recognizing their purely private character as does current Tennessee law; and reduced requirements for very small commercial dairies…”

Foley worries that without an exemption, tiny dairies will shy away.   “A testing requirement would be too expensive for people with just one or two lactating cows to deal with,” he says.

Foley estimates there may be more than 1,000 tiny dairy operations dispensing raw milk in some type of herdshare or private sale arrangements, and that many won’t come out into the open without an exemption.  “And that means they won't be able to share knowledge easily, find better ways to do what they're doing, and be responsible to the larger community. California can't police all these folks and shouldn't want to.  What they're doing is what rural people have done forever and should be respected, not pushed into the closet.”

In other words, whatever the working group agrees to, if anything, would need to be approved by the legislature via additions to the dairy laws, since herdshares currently aren’t covered. Coming to agreement won’t be a simple matter, though. Foley acknowledges that there are among herdshare operators a significant number that don’t approve even of the “exemption” idea. “I've been in conversation with some farmers who are also law scholars, and they warn that the term ‘exemption’ is dangerous, because it grants jurisdiction to the regulators, along with the (temporary) ‘exemption"’  He feels the Tennessee law “simply recognizes and codifies this lack of jurisdiction” by the state for raw milk availability for personal use.

Another model being explored is that of Idaho, which has new code that exempts small dairies from Grade A dairy requirements for facilities and equipment, but imposes Grade A requirements for the quality of the raw milk, which includes bacteria limits. Cow and goat owners must apply for a permit from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture to sell raw milk to the public.

In their position statement to CDFA, the herdshare operators contend that, “Health risks are nearly non-existent on very small family farms and the number of people with two or three cows/goats is high. To criminalize this group of law abiding citizens would put an incredible burden on the state and local sheriffs, who do not have the resources to enforce unnecessary laws.”

Pasteurization became necessary, the position statement suggests, because of the industrialization of agriculture, including milk production. “The laws for milk safety were developed in response to the dangers of the swill dairies of old, and those laws continue to be relevant today in protecting consumers from dairy produced in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). These CAFOs produce a product that can be rife with dangerous bacteria and therefore require strict facility and pasteurization requirements to kill the pathogens within their milk.”

I sense in Whiteford’s response, a desire by CDFA to not take on the huge task of closely regulating so many tiny dairies operating as herdshares, as well as an interest in getting this matter off the CDFA’s table, via new legislation that could address the issue. I hope I’m not being too much an optimist, but I do know that if this matter could be resolved via negotiation between dairy owners and regulators, it could serve as an important precedent. We certainly could use some positive precedents.

***

Mystery solved. The “brucellosis” scare in Massachusetts was a false alarm. The farmer, Robert Kilmer, doesn’t have brucellosis, nor do any of his cows. I had actually heard about preliminary results Tuesday evening that the testing was coming up negative, but wanted to wait for final results before posting anything. Now, Food Safety News is saying it has emails from the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture and the Massachusetts Department of Public Health giving the all clear. Kilmer’s farm is no longer under quarantine, and it can resume raw milk sales.

I suppose Kilmer will need to do more digging about his own physical symptoms.

And maybe he can ask the agencies for an apology. According to an email quoted by Food Safety News, an official of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources stated: "All in all this has been a trying experience, but the cooperation and willingness to take the steps needed by MDAR, DPH, USDA and most importantly the farmer has helped immensely." I would expect that is the closest Kilmer and other raw dairy farms in Massachusetts are going to get to an apology for blaming the dairy's raw milk for illness. And he'll have to accept the fact that all those incorrect reports will continue coming up every time someone googles under brucellosis in Massachusetts or his farm’s name.

Food Pathogen Mystery in MA: How Did Dairy Farmer Robert Kilmer Contract Brucellosis? WI DATCP Warns of New Actions with FDA, Hershberger Files for Dismissal of Criminal Charges

The fear-mongering echo chamber that is the Internet's food safety arena is abuzz with news about a Massachusetts raw milk drinker who contracted brucellosis.

The MarlerClark law firm's Food Poison Journal headlines, "Twin Rivers Farm Raw Milk Linked to Brucella Illness". It said that "a local farm’s raw milk could be contaminated with Brucella. Brucellosis, also called Bang's disease, Crimean fever, Gibraltar fever, Malta fever, Maltese fever, Mediterranean fever, rock fever, or undulant fever, is a highly contagious zoonosis caused by ingestion of unpasteurized milk or meat from infected animals or close contact with their secretions. Twin River Farm in Ashley Falls is the subject of a DPH investigation after a suspected human case was reported by an individual who had contact with the farm."

"Did Massachusetts Man Contract Brucella Infection from Raw Milk?" asks Fred Pritzker's Food Poisoning Law Blog. It reports that the Massachusetts Department of Public Health issued an alert Friday that a man who drank raw milk from Twin Rivers Farm in Western Massachusetts received a preliminary diagnosis of brucellosis. "The patient purchased raw milk from a Twin Rivers Farm in late December."

(From the Veterinary Public Health AssociationIt turns out the situation isn't as clear-cut as the law firms might like to believe. Here are a few facts that weren't in any of their accounts:

* The person who became ill was the dairy's owner, Robert Kilmer, not just someone who happened to have "contact with the farm" or who "purchased raw milk..."

* The dairy in question, Twin Rivers Farm, is primarily a conventional dairy, which sells the vast majority of its milk from about 120 milking cows to processors for pasteurization and other processing.

* The dairy sells a small amount of milk unpasteurized to local residents of the area--maybe 20 gallons a week--and none of them have reported symptoms of illness. "A few local people wanted me to sell raw milk," Kilmer told me. So he obtained a state permit about three years ago.

* The dairy has for many years vaccinated its calves against brucella.

* The dairy has long maintained a closed herd to guard against the introduction of disease.

* Regulators have yet to do any testing--of the milk, the animals, or the herd, so there's no way to know if raw milk was the culprit, or whether there might have been some other association Kilmer had with the animals. For example, brucellosis can be passed through cows' reproductive fluids, during the birth of a calf. Or perhaps Kilmer had contact with an infected animal off his farm.  

Kilmer does drink raw milk from his herd, he says, as do most dairy farmers, even if they are selling milk for processing.   

Regulators from the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources and the Department of Public Health will be visiting the farm tomorrow (Monday) to do tests on his herd and on his milk. "There is no way in hell there should be brucellosis in this herd," Kilmer told me. He's owned the farm for twenty years, and the previous owner had it for thirty years, without any signs of brucellosis or other diseases. Indeed, reports in the local media indicate brucellosis hasn't been seen in Massachusetts for at least two decades.

Kilmer says he first began experiencing flu-like symptoms shortly after Christmas. Generally, the fevers and muscle aches would occur in the afternoon and at night, and disappear during the day. Eventually, after ruling out such illnesses as mononucleosis and strep throat, his physician sent him to a specialist in infectious diseases, and the diagnosis came through late Thursday, leading the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to put out an alert late Friday. (I have not been able to locate the actual alert that has been used by the law firms and local media.) Kilmer is currently on two antibiotics that he will need to take for 90 days.

Kilmer has a dispassionate view about raw milk. "Someone very young, below the age of two, should not drink raw milk," he says. "Their immune systems aren't well enough developed." But he thinks others should have the choice, and says the arguments of the opponents "kind of crack me up...since most of the diseases you might get are easily treated."

In any event, he is not pleased about the law firms and media immediately linking his illness to raw milk. "This is a total fabrication," he said. "It has not been found in the milk. It has been found in me." (One local publication has played the situation accurately.)

I guess Kilmer doesn't understand that the product liability law firms can't wait for the facts, since they are in intense competition for new business, and don't care if they taint a farm or other business in their rush to get out marketing promo (er, excuse me, news).

Nor does he understand that the anti-raw-milk crowd lusts for illnesses that can be attributed to raw milk, and can't take time to find out the real situation and possibly let the facts interfere with the agenda at hand.

***

A new phase in Wisconsin's relentless war on raw dairy should be starting up shortly. According to news from the food safety chief at the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Steve Ingham, he has new prosecutions or enforcement actions planned against additional farms besides that of Vernon Hershberger, the farmer accused of misdemeanors for making available raw milk to private food club members. Ingham is quoted in Agri-View as saying, "At present there are between five and ten cases where we know there may be a problem. The cases are in different stages of review and information has been shared with FDA and with county district attorneys. There are other cases where we are still in the data collection process."

In the meantime, Hershberger has filed a motion for dismissal of his case. It argues in part, "The State has no evidence that the private foods from the farm were sold to the public, because none was. There was no claim by the public that the food caused anyone harm. There was no injured party. This lawsuit lacks the elements of causes of action and is defective."

Moreover, he argues that Wisconsin's dairy laws allow for consumption of raw milk by "by the owner or operator of the farm, or members of the household or nonpaying guests or employees..." He contends: "Since March 2010, the products we grow are not sold, ever. The food we produce is consumed by the farm owners and their families only; the farming families and no one else. Any payment the family receives from owners is a contribution for my family's managing and executing farm chores and needs, that is labor, supplies and overhead costs only. In the spirit of cooperation and understanding, several times we notified DATCP of our new standing and separation from it and our eliminating all standard toxic health-department regulations. DATCP's Complaint is a retaliation for our separation from overextended State authority and control for which we are protected by the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution."

Update on Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 06:04PM by The Complete Patient

Bill Marler has posted a correction on Food Poison Journal of the original post, suggesting I misunderstand his motives as a lawyer. And for the record, his Food Safety News had information on this case that was closer to the reality.

I guess I would say that, leaving aside motives, there is a fundamental problem when the product liability law firms simply publish whatever the public health and agriculture departments dispense, without making any effort to check with the food producers in question. Yes, that would take more time and more effort, but it is the right thing to do, especially with long-term reputations at stake.

New CA Public Health Report Further Links Illnesses to OPDC; McAfee Argues Fermenting May Have Exacerbated Tainting

The California Department of Public Health has genetically matched E.coli 0157:H7 that sickened five children, ages one to five years old, with water and manure samples taken from a calf holding area at Organic Pastures Dairy Co.  

Milk from Organic Pastures Dairy Co. delivered to a retail store. The agency speculates that "contamination found in the calving area originated from maternal cows and subsequently passed to calves, either directly through feeding, indirectly through fecal-oral transmission, or by translocation through movement of personnel and equipment used on the farm."

The CDPH revealed details of its analysis in a report letter to Mark McAfee, owner of OPDC (which he discussed in comments following my previous post). Among the details of the report letter:

* Out of "a significant number of samples" of manure, water, soil, and swabs of various contact surfaces, ten "from the calf area were positive for E.coli O157:H7 (1 swab, 3 soil, 1 water, and 5 fecal)..."

* Two of the samples--one manure and one water-- "had a PFGE (pulse-field gel electrophoresis) pattern indistinguishable from the outbreak strain."

* The CDPH doesn't speculate about how the E.coli O157:H7 got into the milk from the calf area, except to say, "the fact that E.coli O157:H7 identifcal to the outbreak strain was recovered from OPDC environment supports the probability that the OPDC raw milk the case patients consumed was similarly contaminated leading to their illnesses."

* The CDPH also "isolated shiga-toxin producing pathogens" from packaged OPDC colostrum collected at the dairy. "The pathogen is very rare and we were unable to serotype it at our laboratory. The isolate has been sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for further evaluation." According to the CDC, E.coli O157 H:7 is the most common shiga toxin producing E.coli (STEC). Other such E.coli "are not nearly as well understood, partly because outbreaks due to them are rarely identified. As a whole, the non-O157 serogroup is less likely to cause severe illness than E. coli O157; however, some non-O157 STEC serogroups can cause the most severe manifestations of STEC illness."

* The CDPH also said it found "sanitary deficiencies" in the OPDC milk bottling room, milk storage rooms, labeling room, kefir room, and common areas. These included chipping paint, mold-mildew, and rodent droppings.   

In a letter of response, McAfee said OPDC has taken steps to isolate the calf area from the milk production and creamery operations. He added, "We now have a plan in place with employee training, segregation of personnel and dedication of equipment to reduce the risk or opportunity of the possible cross communication of bacteria from our calves to the rest of the operations."

He also said the sanitation problems have been addressed via a reconstructed milk bottling room and upgrades to the milk storage rooms.

Controversy seems to be lurking in the supposed manner in which two of the children became ill from E.coli O157:H7 in OPDC milk. In a comment following my previous post, McAfee stated, "We do know that at least two of the most sickened children did not drink raw milk,....but drank OPDC after it had been 'fermented and cultured with store bought Kefir cultures ' " There is nothing in the CDPH report letter that details the circumstances of how the milk was consumed by the sickened children.  

But in an email today to Stephen Beam, head of the California Department of Food and Agriculture's dairy division, McAfee requested that publicity coming out of that agency explain his understanding about how the milk was used by a customer. "In all fairness, it is crucial that your department and CDPH both include in your press releases, that two of the hospitalized and most sickened children, did not drink raw milk at all. They instead drank a homemade brew of cultured raw milk with added cultures in their own containers and the end product contained millions of bacteria per ml. They also ate cultured vegetables that were soaked in raw whey collected from this cultured Kefir.

"That is an entirely different story….than two sickened kids drinking fresh raw milk...I would be very disappointed in the accuracy of the report if it did not include that the two most sickened kids drank a home cultured kefir and not our  fresh raw  milk."

In the aftermath of the outbreaks over two months in late summer and early fall, OPDC was shut down for four weeks, and then, after it re-opened, prohibited from selling colostrum. It's not clear if the colostrum prohibition is related to the finding of the rare shiga-producing pathogen in the colostrum.

I don't think we've heard the end of this story quite yet. On the matter of fermenting the milk to make kefir or yogurt, lots of consumers do that. Is McAfee suggesting people shouldn't do that, or that it should be done "at your own risk"? Just when you think you've heard the last of the issues surrounding raw milk safety, a new one rears its head.

Why Conflict Over RAWMI Need Not Hurt Food Rights Movement; One Organization's Mission Statement

The unsettling news about questionable factory foods just keeps coming.

A few days ago, it was Coca Cola saying it found a fungicide in orange juice it produces in Brazil for sale in the U.S.

A few days before that, the USDA was proposing to approve GMO corn that will be based in part on the herbicide of Vietnam War fame, Agent Orange.

Last year, it was 36 million pounds of Cargill turkey contaminated with antibiotic-resistant salmonella.

Before that, it was news that more than two-thirds of our chicken is contaminated with campylobacter and/or salmonella, while the public health community looks the other way, and focuses on shutting down dairy farms.

Shoppers Saturday at Norwich Farmers Market crowd produce and other stands. Each time we are reminded of the truly scary dangers in our food system, the marketplace for nutrient-dense foods expands. Each time we learn that we face an increasingly serious risk of being poisoned by legal and illegal adulterants in our food--GMOs, mercury, fungicides, antibiotic-resistant pathogens, and so forth--more people become wary of buying their milk, meat, eggs, cheeses, and vegetables out of the factory system. Each time a new study shows a growing incidence of asthma and allergies, or the dangers of nitrites, artificial sweeteners, and high fructose corn syrup, the unease about shopping at Kroger's and WalMart increases.

Before you know it, you have a growing army of disillusioned consumers ever more open to joining a food club, or buying into a herdshare arrangement, or venturing out to farmers markets. (The photo above is of some of the crowd that turned out yesterday in sub-freezing temperatures for an indoor farmers market in Norwich, VT.)

Equally significant, these individuals become receptive to the arguments of the budding food rights movement.

One of the facts that stuck out to me in Blair McMorran's incisive examination of the benefits of raw milk testing protocols was this little aside: in Colorado, "at least 20 (raw dairies)...have just started up."

Yes, conventional dairies continue to fold. But raw milk dairies have launched, or converted from conventional production, in significant measure because there is a lucrative growing market for raw dairy and other unprocessed natural foods. The same thing has occurred in California with herdshares, not to mention many other states.

This growing market demand may well turn out to be the saving grace in the growing controversy over RAWMI, and the standard-setting/oversight issues that many here worry about.

Toni Baer lamented in a comment following my previous post, "From my European and scientific perspective nothing is worse within a small movement, if people start attacking each other openly on websites. It only helps those who are against you, which are those who want to get rid of the raw milk."

I don't doubt the enemies of food choice and freedom take pleasure in the disagreements here. But they may be taking false comfort. The marketplace is smarter than many of us. As people become ever more worried about their health and the health of their families, they will seek out information about making changes.

Part of what we're talking about is the difference between a trend and a movement.

A market trend is simply that, a move by increasing numbers of people toward particular kinds of products and services. Sometimes it's a matter of popularity (music) and fashion (clothes, accessories) and sometimes a trend grows out of fear.

In the case of health, a seemingly healthy market trend (toward nutrient-dense foods) can be subverted by a combination of corporate marketing (providing its version of "safe" and "natural" food) and government propaganda (those people organizing the movement are a bunch of kooks and weirdos and disdain "science").

The key question for those of us worried about the trampling of food rights, is whether the trend--fear of tainted food that is driving ever larger numbers of people to seek out good food--can be transformed into a movement. I don't pretend to be an expert in the development of movements, but I do know they unfold in significantly different ways.

We tend to think of the Civil Rights movement as having burst onto the scene in the 1960s under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr., but the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was actually founded in 1909.

The Occupy Wall Street movement and all its spinoffs seemingly materialized over a few weeks last year...and then just as quickly dissipated...or did it?  

Look at the women's rights, gay rights, and home schooling movements, and you will see different dynamics in each.

We don't yet fully appreciate the dynamics of the food rights movement. My sense is that it will take a heavy focus on local organization, rather than some top-down approach. The local organizations need to take responsibility for publicizing particular local events, like last week's arraignment of Wisconsin raw dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger.

Gayle Loiselle was rightfully upset that Hershberger's private contract distribution approach didn't get a clearer presentation in the media. It "was a missed opportunity because the media was there and ripe for the picking but the most credible well-spoken media savvy heavy hitters in the raw milk movement were not. With at least 2 networks there the message of choice…individual rights … and the abuse of power by the government… could have all been spun into powerful sound bites by those who know how to use the media to the best advantage."

I agree, but those "media savvy heavy hitters" aren't necessarily the ones the media even want to hear from--very often, they prefer articulate local people, who are most familiar with the circumstances at hand. I know some local leaders were on hand for the demonstration outside the courthouse on behalf of Hershberger. Perhaps they need training, as Loiselle suggests, to make sure Hershberger's message comes through. Maybe that becomes part of the education focus of the Raw Milk Institute.

All by way of saying, we shouldn't necessarily fear a variety of organizations (like the Raw Milk Institute, the Raw Milk Freedom Riders, the Farm Food Freedom Coalition, Food Sovereignty, Alliance for Raw Milk, Weston A. Price Foundation, Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, etc., etc. ) Nor should we fear serious debate as a means to inform and help people crystalize their views.

So the big unanswered question right now is whether the trend toward serious worry about the quality of our factory food will translate into a sustainable growing movement for the right to access the foods of our choosing. Since the trend isn't likely to abate any time soon, we have expanding opportunities to get the movement into shape.

***
Deborah Peterson expressed frustration, following my previous post, about developing mission statements. Since she mentioned it, here's one just completed by the Raw Milk Freedom Riders. I think it's pretty decent.

"The Raw Milk Freedom Riders are dedicated to overturning the FDA's criminalization of interstate raw milk shipments as a way to end the agency's ongoing assault on dairy farmers and the consumers they serve.  The assaults include raids on small dairies that distribute raw milk, undercover investigations of ordinary citizens who consume raw milk, and assorted efforts to destabilize private food clubs, among other actions.

"We are committed to intentionally defying the interstate ban as a way to publicize the reality that raw milk isn't a public health hazard and to publicly expose the FDA’s violent acts listed above.

"We demand that the FDA leave raw milk decisions entirely to individual states, and respect the rights of individuals to enter into private contracts with farmers to obtain the foods of their choice."

The Raw Milk Freedom Riders have already held two demonstrations involving civil disobedience. And the organization will have a booth at the upcoming Constitutional Sheriffs Convention Jan. 29-31.

***

Here's an in-depth look at one slice of the food rights struggle...and a pretty fair one, at that, from The New American magazine. Includes some worthwhile history, as well. Also, it provides the views of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, without bowing to them.

And an interview with me on Agricultural Insights web site, about the government crackdown on raw milk, by Chris Stelzer.

Words, Words...Why RAWMI Exposes Such Deep Fears; Rally to Support Vernon Hershberger; Coming New Look

I've had some trouble writing this post. I keep starting it, and then someone posts an intriguing comment that takes me off in yet another direction, and I start over again.

I started off wanting to relate the Obama Administration's response to a petition seeking an end to the federal ban on raw milk, to the debate over the Raw Milk Institute.  

There's no surprise in the administration's actual response, that Obama supports pasteurization of all milk, and opposes raw milk. We can assume he doesn't pay much attention to this specific issue, but the reality is that his aides don't issue positions he opposes. He said he was against raw dairy when he was a senator, and so he continues to say the same thing now.

What's discouraging is that the White House adviser who wrote the response was cynical enough to suggest, "We...understand the importance of letting consumers make their own food choices."

These words were just fluff to the adviser, and his boss. They, of course, "understand" nothing of the sort. In their world, they can't allow true choice because they know best, they are the repositories of "science."

I wanted to point out that as much as these autocratic opponents of true "food choices" want the issue to disappear, it won't. It will inevitably expand, as ever more people learn about not only the ever-expanding restrictions on our liberties, but the costs in human health.

It seems to me that one important way it will expand is that it will wend its way through the courts, likely on a number of fronts (an appeal of the Wisconsin Craig/Zinniker case, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund case against the FDA, the Dan Allgyer case, among others).

It seems to me that RAWMI is a way to reply to the fear mongering the regulators throw out there, as a way to demonstrate that raw milk providers are self policing. Sally O'Boyle's immediate reaction was similar to mine: "When I first heard about RAWMI and its attempts to be a private regulatory 'agency' for dairy farmers, I immediately called to join up, to be trained as an inspector for KY. I would so much rather have a private agency inspecting my milk than a gov agency, bought and paid for by corporate interests."  

But what should this RAWMI we refer to look like? Should it even exist at all?

Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. expresses surprise about the depth of opposition to RAWMI. "I did not know about farmers that absolutely want no help or assistance to develop consumer friendly programs to show the work they do for safety. I did not know that many Cow Share operators reject any kind of exposure and demand absolute secrecy."

But I wonder, is his surprise that this segment of farmers exists? Is he surprised by the depth of their concerns? Or is he surprised that they "demand absolute secrecy"? Or does he mean "privacy" instead of "secrecy"?  

So strong are the feelings, on both sides, that they are difficult to articulate. That leads to frustration. Gayle Loiselle,a plaintiff in the Craig/Zinniker cases in Wisconsin, sums it up when she says, "We need to organize and educate within our communities about the far reaching dangers of highly processed mass produced food and the benefits of sustainably produced nutrient dense food. And not waste our energy arguing over who is more right…that is exactly what the opposition is hoping for."

Yes, all this was a lot easier when all we had to do was rail against the state and federal regulators at demonstrations, or express our cynicism during the Raw Milk Symposium. But now that we are looking at creating a new safety-oriented entity that is at once "consumer friendly" and "transparent," as Mark McAfee puts it, the situation is much more challenging. Partly because we each have a different vision of what all these qualities mean.

Tim Wightman rightfully raises the fundamental question many of us would just as soon not think about: What should RAWMI (or a similar organization) actually do? He's not sure exactly what it is, but knows what it isn't. "To supplant wisdom with testing is not the answer and is the very reason we got in this mess in the first place. Balance is the key, in our soils, in our understanding and in our approach to the forces we must align ourselves with. To relegate that balance to testing alone is to ignore the other 75% of what it takes to create a quality product, and takes responsibility away to gaining wisdom and the relationships it forges."


And then there are a good number of clear-thinking people who have serious problems with the idea of the Raw Milk Institute (or any such additional institutional entity) being a part of the food scene to begin with. Doreen Hannes fears "monopoly," "control," and diminished overall dairy quality--all the result of some kind of repeat of the setting of costly organic standards, which resulted in giving the biggest advantages to the biggest players.

Dave Milano worries about my perceived "monitoring void." He suggests that "the need for third-party controllers resulted from invented systems that created voids between people and the products and services they use. Controls are emphatically not necessary and not desirable when a product or service is natural and uncomplicated, and when face-to-face contact can occur between the provider and consumer."

And then there is the anger that comes out. Much of it is directed at McAfee. Some is way over the top, overly personal, though I prefer to think of it as indicative of the huge amount of emotion people have invested in this issue.
 
And some of it is directed at this blog, and me, for not regulating or censoring the commentary more.
As Deborah Peterson says, "This blog has turned into such a negative, ugly blog which has lost its focus in its intent. That is what is sad."

I think there is something to that, though it is worth noting that things have actually gotten uglier a number of times in the past. Still, I am especially sensitive to the rising number of complaints over the years that those using pseudonyms are more prone to engage in personal attacks on others, especially on those who do use their real names.

In the big picture, though, Doreen Hannes has captured the dynamic real well, articulated the explanation that has eluded me for answering those who demand (ever more frequently), "Get rid of the jerks.":

"To everyone that wants David to control the commenters, that is a very tough thing to do from an ideological standpoint. How can you be for freedom and cut some people off from expressing themselves?...It would be too time consuming to monitor all comments and then David would find himself having to explain why he wasn't allowing x or y to be posted. So, while I personally detest many things that are said and the spirit they appear to be given in....and while I rarely comment here myself because of the continued personal vendettas and even outright silliness of some of the commenters, I think David just needs to let it be. Spit out the bones and take the meat. It is evident who is worth discussing things with and who is not. Let's all just self police on the comments.

I still think much of it comes back to our difficulty confronting all that RAWMI implies. Maybe the solution is something akin to what Maurice Kaehler suggests, which is a return to more simplicity in our thinking. "How about everyone milking the cows twice a day, keeping your numbers down, taking care of your customers and starting an association based on a 4-H model where info about research, technology and practices are shared. The bison farmers have been doing this for years."

I prefer to be more optimistic than to go along with his predicted "split" in the food rights movement. "For some people and farms too much is at stake as the cart is before the horse." Getting the cart in the right place can't be that difficult, can it?

***

There's a rally tomorrow (Wednesday) in Sauk, WI, to support dairy farmer Vernon Hershberger when he makes his first court appearance in connection with criminal misdemeanor charges. The charges were filed a year-and-a-half after Hershberger cut the tape placed on his coolers by the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to prevent him from distributing raw dairy products to members of his food club.

The rally will be at noon, on the Sauk County Courthouse Steps, 515 Oak St.


**
Not sure if the timing is good or bad, but this blog is getting a new look. It is a look intended to highlight more effectively the commentary that takes place here, as well as to make topic searching easier, and just be easier on the eyes.

As you might imagine, moving this blog, and its six years worth of content, from one locale to another, is no trivial matter. Along with that challenge has come the challenge of making sure the new site operates smoothly.

All this by way of saying that, if you are registered with this site, you will sometime in the next few weeks be receiving an email from me announcing the switchover. The email will provide a link to the new site, so you can set up your password there (either the one you are currently using, or a new one). Your user name will remain unchanged.