IN-RawMilkReport12-12.JPG

You have to give credit where credit is due–to Indiana regulators who have just issued a report about possibly loosening the state’s strict prohibitions on raw milk.

But while they are refreshingly candid in identifying key problems in the debate over access to raw milk, they stick to the party line when it comes to offering approaches that might plow new ground in the tiresome and seemingly endless debate over whether the growing number of consumers demanding access to raw milk should have it.  When they are done, they appear to reinforce the notion that Indiana’s existing system of private raw milk distribution is preferable to a highly restrictive “public” system of availability.

The Indiana Board of Animal Health was ordered by the legislature earlier this year to complete an assessment  of raw milk, to help legislators to decide whether to officially legalize raw milk sales in some way.  While officially illegal, the state doesn’t now interfere with private sales by farmers direct to consumers, nor with herd shares, food clubs, or sales of raw milk as pet food.  

The agency took its mandate sort of seriously, creating an  advisory committee including a few raw milk proponents among the majority from processor and university opponents. It made a show of effort to collect serious research on various reports and advisories. There are 19 appendices,  including  a press release from the Weston A. Price Foundation questioning the dire interpretation  of data by  the U.S. Centers for Disease Control on raw milk dangers. However, recent research out of Europe about the possible health benefits of  raw milk is  notably missing, and the appendices are weighted toward various government  warnings about  raw milk. 

Perhaps most notable for government regulators, the agency created a report that for possibly the first time uttered two fundamental truths: 

1. That “no consensus middle ground exists between the public health community that wants no raw milk sales to consumers and advocates who want raw milk sales to consumers.”

2. That as committed as the state BOAH is to pasteurization, “the decision to authorize or not the sale of unpasteurized milk to consumers is ultimately a political decision.”

Also to its credit, the agency tried to assess how dairy farmers might react to official sanctioning of raw milk. It acknowledged that not only is there substantial unfilled demand by consumers, but that there is a widespread  desire by dairy farmers to sell raw milk. Of 242 farmers  who responded to a BOAH survey on raw  milk, “158 indicated they  would  sell  raw milk to consumers if it was legalized in Indiana.” That is just  about two-thirds of those responding. 

In the end, though, the BOAH report pulled back from offering anything beyond a possible official easing of rules, whereby farmers would be granted permits to sell raw milk directly from the farm. They  would be  required to meet “sanitation standards” established by  the BOAH. 

In making that overture, though, the agency noted that an advisory committee consisting of both proponents and opponents of raw  milk ran into a  brick wall over the contentious matter of distribution. 

“The committee was unable to reach a consensus on the location  and manner of sales from the farmer to consumers. Some members of  the committee were in favor of restricting  sales and delivery at the farm where the product  was produced only.  Others members of  the committee wanted  sales and delivery from the farmer to the consumer at other locations” like at farmer stores, farmers markets, and delivery to consumers or to dropoff points. 

The issue of delivery has been  a big part of the problem in other states, most notably Minnesota. There, the  state has taken farmers to  court over their insistence on delivering milk to consumer drop sites. 

The report made clear that if a permit system for farmers was adopted, then all raw milk producers, including those who produce for herd shares and buying clubs, would then fall under the new regulations, and have to conform to the same sanitation standards. It isn’t clear if consumers who now obtain raw milk via herd shares, private sales, and as pet food would lose delivery flexibility under a farmer permit system, though when dealing with regulators, it’s most realistic to assume the worst. Thus, a BOAH-regulated system could place a  layer of possibly  very tough regulation in place via farm-based sales that prohibit any kind  of delivery. 

Given the super-cautious BOAH approach, my guess is that this report will most likely wind up in the trash bin, similar to what occurred  in Wisconsin last year after it convened a similar kind of regulator-inspired examination of raw  milk sales. (That 261-page report was much more  specific  about the nature of sanitation and  other  regulations  that would  be  part  of  any farmer permit system, and possibly sank in part because of  the detail.)

This report will at  least be remembered  for having been honest enough  to acknowledge  that the hard  decisions  are political, not public-health-based,  and that finding common ground won’t occur…unless forced by consumers and farmers.  

**

A Wisconsin judge put off a decision today (Monday) on a motion by the state’s Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) for an injunction to permanently bar Arlin Bender from practicing his trade as a butcher (as described in my previous post).

Instead, the judge agreed to hear Bender’s motion, as presented by his new lawyer, Elizabeth Rich of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, on modification of the temporary injunction. That hearing will be held at 11 a.m. on January 16,  at which time the judge will consider Rich’s motion.

Another new wrinkle is that Bender will get a trial, on March 4-5.  DATCAP’s motion for a permanent injunction will be heard immediately after the trial, at which point it could be moot if Bender is exonerated in the trial.

Nearly 30 people, nearly all members of Bender’s Mennonite community, attended today’s hearing.