Barbara Smith Launches a Successful Raw Milk Cowshare; NY's Response: Fines, Search Warrant
Wednesday, October 3, 2007 at 09:05PM For nearly ten years, Barbara Smith held a New York state permit to sell raw milk. But because her Meadowsweet Farm is located a half hour drive from the nearest substantial town, Ithaca, and New York regulations require each customer to come to the farm for milk, she never could get more than 20 or 30 customers.
So last spring, she decided that a better way to reach the many consumers she knew wanted regular access to raw milk was to give up her raw milk permit, and distribute via a cowshare arrangement. Consumers could buy in for $50 a share, and pay quarterly in advance for their share of boarding fees, based on $6 a gallon. This would allow her to distribute outside the farm at dropoff points. She started a limited liability company (LLC) whose only asset was her eight cows.
She was correct about the pent-up demand for raw milk in the Ithaca area. Word got around and within months, she had 130 cowshare owners and a waiting list of 30 more.
The only fly in the ointment has been New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets. According to Barbara, the state has continued to treat Meadowsweet as if it still has a permit, by conducting ongoing inspections of her farm, leading to fines and, today, a search warrant.
The Barbara Smith episode seems to be the latest step in a campaign begun late last year to transform New York from a somewhat permissive to a tough state with regard to sales and distribution of raw milk. The campaign had previously focused on shutting down raw milk producers for listeria monocytogenes contamination (four were hit) even though no one became ill, and no listeria-related illnesses related to raw milk have been documented in the U.S. since the Centers for Disease Control began keeping statistics in 1973.
The problems for Barbara escalated at the end of August, when she received a notice from the agriculture department that she was being fined $1,700 for various “unsanitary plant conditions” found in inspections during the late spring and summer. The list of violations included a tear in a screen door, “unlabeled containers” of liquid (which contained buttermilk), a small pool of water that collected under a refrigerator condenser, and “excessive weeds” outside her barn.
Adding insult to injury, she was informed that if she didn’t pay the fine within 15 days, she faced a possible lawsuit to recover the penalties. She didn’t pay.
Moreover, on September 7, when an inspector showed up, she answered his question as to whether it was okay to conduct an inspection with a refusal. She reasoned that since she no longer had a raw milk permit, she should no longer be subject to inspections that seemed geared toward harassment fines. On September 14, the inspector returned, this time with a supervisor, and she once again refused to allow them to conduct an inspection.
Today, the same inspector and supervisor showed up, and now they had a warrant from the New York State Supreme Court in Albany County, stating to the bureaucrats, “You are hereby authorized to enter (the farm); to inspect those premises; to take photographs; to inspect any vehicles used for the storage or transportation of milk, dairy products and food to and from the premises; to quarantine milk, dairy products or food which is adulterated or misbranded; to take samples of milk, dairy products, and food for analysis; and to seize, destroy, or denature such items which are unfit or unsafe for use.”
Barbara told them she wanted to talk to her lawyer, though she never refused to let the two enter her property. The inspectors said that if she wasn’t going to stand aside, they would file contempt charges against her, and left.
She says she wouldn't have refused the inspectors permission to conduct their search, except they didn't give her a chance. “It feels like entrapment,” she adds.
I spoke late this afternoon with Jessica Chittenden, the public information officer for the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets, and she seemed to be attempting a conciliatory tone, saying that the department’s lawyer had just made contact with the Smith’s lawyer. “We are hopeful that the Smith’s will comply with the regulations,” she stated.
Which regulations? “We require a permit for the sale of raw milk,” she stated. When I explained that the Smiths had given up their permit, and weren’t selling raw milk, but rather distributing it to cowshare owners, she said, “We are in the process of negotiating all that with their lawyer.”
As for possible contempt charges against the Smiths, “Nothing has been decided yet.”
Pete Kennedy, a lawyer for the Weston A. Price Foundation, who spoke with Barbara, told me that in his view, New York's Department of Agriculture and Markets "exceeded their authority. There is nothing in the law that says they have juridiction over herd share programs."
Guess we'll have to wait and see whether this is an isolated problem, or the beginning of a new campaign targeting cowshare/herdshare programs.
***
NOTE: I believe I inadvertently erased seven or eight of the most recent comments posted in connection with my previous posting on organics. My sincere apologies. One of the big problems on most blogs is a proliferation of spam messages. Suspected spam is held aside for me to review and either approve or disapprove. Tonight, there were more than 1,000 such postings, which is way more than usual, and in an effort to hurry through them, I failed to notice that a few legitimate comments were mixed in. (They look a little different.) Next time, I'll be alert to them. In the meantime, if your comment was erased, please feel free to recreate it.
Reader Comments (23)
"I pay a fortune for food, but feel blessed that I can afford it and have a store like this available."
There are a lot of people like Mary McGonigle-Martin who don't have time to drive an hour one way to pick up food from a farm,even though they would like to. That is why many farms are begining to deliver to locations like csa's on pickup days or schools at the time children get out or private homes where buying clubs meet and even to people's homes.Even a relatively small number of families buying a large part of their meat and dairy products directly from one farm can be enough support to keep it going.
Looking back into the past,this is how the local economy used to function.Farmers had milk routes or egg routes that delivered food directly from the farm to households in town.It makes much more sense than to have everyone driving out to the farm and it builds a relationship between the farmer and a relatively small community of friends. Every family should visit the farm just to see how things are done,but they don't need to visit once a week.
The last thing we need is to have Federal or State inspectors inspecting our food for us. The people who run these agencies are rotated in and out of these jobs from corporations like Monsanto.Do you really want them to decide what you can or cannot eat?
If we post a new comment, how long should we allow before concluding that our post didn't correctly travail the electronic pathways and try to repost? I tried to post last night under the Organics label discussion, but it didn't seem like it went through right, and it's not showing up yet.
Are there better ways to post so that it doesn't look like spam? I think we'd all like to minimize the amount of administrator work that you must do.
It will take much strength and resolve for Barbara, and others who see the merit in cowshares, to push the issue in their states. The courts need to decide the legality of these contracts, and the faster we can get test cases in the courts, the easier it would be to establish this route as the most beneficial way to supply raw milk. Yes, there is the chance that they might be struck down, but hopefully the inability for judges to be swayed by Big Dairy money (unlike those who must run re-election campaigns), will allow for this mechanism. It’s obvious that sooner or later, the higher courts will have to render a decision…especially if people like Barbara are willing to keep pushing the issue.
Food by contract and ownership is something that most should agree on. It caters to those who are pro business and feel strongly about the right to do business. Those who emphasize individual rights should support it too. Free marketers and small governmenters could align themselves behind it. The only people who can’t find a reason to support it would be those beholding to Big Dairy, and those making Listeria grow in commodity milk. This issue can have a tendency to pull in support from ‘both’ sides of the aisle…if it is framed correctly.
Hopefully the Meadowsweet folks have joined the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund. Sharp legal representation will be necessary….the opposition will be forceful and focused. Getting this resolved in court could prove to be catalystic.
Raising money for lawyers is something that this movement has come to. It’s pretty obvious that while many skirmishes will happen in State houses, the courts can prove to be our most beneficial asset….if we can prevail on the validity of the argument. The FtCLDF is an important step in this direction, and the level of support that it needs cannot be measured in words. The stronger it is, the healthier a legal advocate raw milk farmers can have, the better our chances will be in the Halls of Justice. If everyone that is reading this hasn’t become a member, and donated to the Fund…..you should!
Do it right now! www.ftcldf.org
A society that deems ownership of livestock a crime cannot be healthy, just, or aware of the history of civilized man. It would be interesting to see how it is justified to add cattle to the list of things that citizens are prohibited from owning. Assault rifles, explosive devices, cows…. As Bert and Ernie say…one of these things doesn’t belong!
Thoughts and prayers for the Meadowsweet folk…they are on the front line.
We all know how friendly and cute grown up sharks are…
Raw milk is a secret held by a few and the current paradigm is racing around trying to either kill it or marry it. Because if it is not brought under somebody's control very quickly….all heaven will break loose.
This is a momentous time for raw milk and other whole complete natural foods. OPDC gets 56,000 hits per day at its website and 10 stores per week beg to be added to its routes.
Here is why:
·Raw milk is the only food officially forbidden to be eaten by the FDA as per policy.
·Raw milk is the only food with a government warning stating that if eaten in its intended raw form, can kill you, but yet it seldom if ever hurts anyone.
·Raw milk is the only food with its own enzymatic and bacterial safety system which can render pathogens inactive.
·Raw milk has never had a CDC reported Listeria illness from 1972 forward ( plenty of raw cheese listeria but no raw milk ).
·Raw milk is the only food that a human can exist on all by itself…nothing else, no water or anything else.
·Raw milk is the oldest mammalian food.
·Raw milk is the only food considered safe enough by “mother nature” to be fed to newborns which lack a mature immune system.
·Raw milk prevents Asthma, IBS, Crohns, Allergies, Osteoporosis, Arthritis, ear infections etc.
·Raw milk provides elements missing in the SAD diet. Enzymes, good bacteria, raw fats, other living rare essential elements and proteins etc…
·Raw milk is the biggest threat to the biggest lie ever perpetuated on first world citizens.
If I was president I would do many things. One of the first would be the immediate firing and indictment of John Sheehan, FDA milk safety chief, for fraud and corruption. I would then ask that federal charges be brought against him under RICO. His fabricated Anti Raw Milk Power Point Presentation is materially inaccurate and filled with mistruths. His numbers are grossly wrong and not supported by the CDC.
Mr. Sheehan does not even have the courage or content required to answer my emails. His last blast against OPDC was to issue anti OPDC FDA statements in all fifty states for raw cream knowing full well that OPDC raw cream is only sold in California, and the 21 pints of raw cream sold as pet food had been recalled by consumer name.
OPDC has just been attacked again. Now it is about a milk tank silo that the government does not like. They say that it is the wrong color inside (that the stainless should be brighter and want us to use Floric acid to clean it, we refuse because the tank is clean and bright just the way it is and Floric acid is highly toxic and may even be against USDA organic standards). This even though it is stainless steel and is grey and extremely clean. We even used 800 grid sand paper to clean every inch of it inside and they still are not happy. As a direct result OPDC cannot collect and store and sell its skim milk and is dumping it into its pastures. All other products continue and the fight goes on.
The good fight is never ending. It is not about food safety, it is about directions given from people in government that want this baby shark dead before it gets its first set of good sharp teeth.
Can you see now why an equity partner is a good thing for leadership in the raw milk movement? Talk about sharks' teeth. If OPDC cannot bite back, then we as a group will suffer along endlessly and needlessly.
All the best,
Mark McAfee
Founder OPDC
I would also assume that the only ones who would fight to prevent the sell of raw milk or any oragnic product would be those who have a vested $$$ interest in the nonraw/organic product (to include the drug/chemical companies).
Standards for anyone selling any kind of food or drink should be in effect. Some people have no clue what to look for in regards to sanitary conditions, healthy looking animals, etc. I can look at a cow or horse, and probably wouldn't notice anything that was "off" unless it was grossly obvious, those that have never been around animals would know even less than me. The standards would help to ensure safety for those people. We all know there are many unscrupulous people out there.
I don't want Big Brother looking over my shoulder, or making demands on those who I get my food from. I would want them to investigate illegal and/or those who are "unscrupulous" as they will only make it harder on the honset people. Am I making sense? Checks and balances are good. When one goes beyond what it is supposed to is where there are problems.
If I want to drink raw milk, I should not have to seek it out nor do it in secret.
I do believe that the consumption of raw milk is a growing movement as is the whole organic movement. Drug/chemical companies along with factory farms stand to lose large amounts of money. For Mark and every other dairy/organic farmer out there, I believe you have an uphill battle against the "powers that be". I for one, am behind you all. (As I had said in another post, it isn't the honest farmers I worry about, it is those who will not maintain sanitary conditions, and they will only hurt the honest farmers in the long run)
Mark, I am snickering at the fear the govt/ other businesses are showing, they attack you because of that fear. Did you know you carry so much power?
Just wondering?
I guess the place to “split hairs” would be if one is part of a cow share program and they receive milk from someone else’s cow. Is that technically selling milk if it doesn’t come directly from the cow you own? Or when you buy into a cow share, do you own a “piece” of all the cows?
The entire concept is wonderful and this is a place the government doesn’t belong.
Using the above example, you would pay the $50 just to buy into the herd, just like buying a share of stock. Then you would pay a monthly or quarterly boarding fee. The milk you receive is free, because it is YOUR milk from YOUR cow. The boarding fees are paid to the farmer for feeding, housing, milking, etc. your cow. The boarding fees are usually calculated on what a gallon of milk should cost. So, if you bought one share of stock for $50 (a one time purchase) and it entitled you to one gallon of milk a week, and one gallon of milk should cost $6, your monthly boarding fee is $24 ($6 gallon x 4 weeks/month), and the milk is free (since it's yours anyway, you bought into the cow - you don't need to buy something from yourself!). If you want two gallons/week, your boarding fee is $48 and the milk is still free. Understand? You are in essence buying the milk, but since that's illegal to do, you're paying the farmer for his labor in another way.
It's a matter of semantics, but if rearranging the words keep the dictocrats off of our backs...
Just kiddin y'all. Wanted to add some humor into the mix.
The Yankees lost tonight and Im trying to laugh my way out of a bad mood.
#1.This is not an appropriate way to view the model of an agister run dairy. It is a legitimate business model that has its own set of parameters and opportunities. Please visit www.VDACS-Assoc.org if you want to learn more about the model.
#2. There is a BIG different between avoidance and evasion. We all tend to avoid taxes--legally, and legitimately. There is no stigma or shame to it. Evasion, on the other hand is not looked at kindly and has a stigma attached.
Share operations are NOT evading anything. They are set up as a legitimate business model which allows a farmer to farm by utilizing outside capital and having a regular income for his work. It may not be the most profitable, but it has a nice regularity that I find for MY farm family works well.
I have absolute support for those farmers who object to, and refuse to comply with, unfair, suspiciously worded regulations that have been created outside of legislative authority and/or are unconstitutional in the broadest sense. I applaud them and support their efforts at systematic change. But for those farmers who are being bureaucratically persecuted and are within the letter of the law, we should all be not only supportive but angry and active in objecting to such treatment. I am so grateful for David to be able to expose these situations and give us the opportunity to offer what support we can.. Continue to keep us posted and let us know what our opportunities for support are. And Go Barbara!
Who, exactly (names, titles, please) in "The Government" is attempting to murder farm personnel and poison Organic Pastures Dairy Company customers with HF, or hydrofluoric acid?
This latest government assault against OPDC and us, your customers, is a threat to life itself!
As you already know, HF is an extremely corrosive and irritating acid and a mutagen (damages your body’s DNA, cancer being one possible outcome). HF is also highly toxic if swallowed, absorbed though the skin, or contacted by the eyes or mucous membranes. In no way shape or form does HF belong in contact with food or food storage containers.
HF is for industrial use only, and even then, most gearheads have been taught to steer clear of this deadly gas dissolved into solution:
“A deadly rinse: The dangers of hydrofluoric acid”
http://www.carwash.com/article.asp?IndexID=4230101
And here is the Harvard University Safety Alert, whose HF protocol is referenced in the car wash article:
http://www-safety.deas.harvard.edu/advise/hf_alert.html
Finally, it must be noted that the use of hydrofluoric acid as a routine cleaning agent in a non-industrial setting (as in grass-fed organic dairy farming!) does not even make the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) list of 16 common uses for HF.
I just want to express my appreciation of this blog and David's interest and effort in supporting us. Thank you all for your backing. We are a bit in shock and I find myself obssessing on what could happen etc. I have a few adjustments to the original posting to set the record straight as well as some comments.
When the inspector handed me the warrant I asked the if I could have time to call our lawyer and they said no. I then asked if I was cooperating with them by allowing access and he said "oh so you want to deny us access still?", I said "well, yes" and then he said "Well alright, we served the warrant!" and quickly turned around and returned to his car and left. I never in any way blocked their access to our farm as I was standing in front of the door to our house the whole time. So they did not ask me to stand aside as I was not standing in the way.On the contrary they seemed anxious to hurry back with the news that I was still refusing access. Clearly they never really wanted to do the inspection in the first place as the warrant obviously gave them the right to do over any objections I may have had! Otherwise, what is a warrant!
It is also significant to their "contempt" case against us that the threat of the contempt charge didn't come till later. The inspector never mentioned it at all, so I was left not knowing what the consequences were of my saying okay to the inspection. (That's why I asked!). I called the county sheriff to find out what rights we had. They sent a deputy to answer my questions. The deputy was familiar with criminal warrants, so she spent some time calling people in the know and eventually got in touch with the Ag & Mkts lawyer. He told her to tell me to have our lawyer contact him because the inspectors were making motions to file a contempt charge.
It seems suspicious that with a warrant the inspectors still seemed to want verbal approval to conduct an inspection. And what seems more suspicious is that they drove away without mentioning contempt, since if they had informed me of a contempt charge I would have told them to do the inspection.
I am anxious to have this all get to court, as it probably will, though the Ag&Mkts lawyer is told our Farm to Consumer lawyer Gary Cox that he is hoping to resolve this and get us "in compliance" this week! He doesn't know who he's dealing with obviously!But our goal, in addition to being able to operate our farm business without their harassment, is to establish some precedence for New York State so all the small farmers following our case can get their programs up and running.
Ag&Mkts told Gary Cox yesterday that they need to keep inspecting us because we MAY be selling raw milk at other locations like farmer'market! The fact that we AREN"T doesn't seem to matter! It's a case of guilty until proven innocent I guess. This kind of muddled thinking is SO characteristic of dealing with this department! It drives a logical person crazy!
To clarify how our LLC works: We set up this LLC and transferred our herd of cows to it as their only asset. Folks become members with a $50 investment and thereby own the herd of cows along with all the other members. Then they make quarterly investments (at the rate of $6.00/gallon) into the company and in return we distribute the assets of the company in the form of milk. There is actually no boarding fee and the folks do not own "a share of a cow". This avoids technical difficulties like what if "your cow" dies, and how to ensure that everyone gets "their own" milk etc. These are the picky things the gov't wants to trip all of us up on. Also, LLCs are a legal entity and according to our lawyer they can distribute whatever they want in the form of assets as long as it is a legal substance (couldn't distribute crack as an asset in other words) - is milk an illicit substance?
As far as what you can do: Good news! Ag&Mkts lawyers read this blog yesterday and in doing so discovered that I did not in fact block the inpsection! I'm excited that they bothered to read it and this gives us all some power and a way in to their minds. They only knew about it because David called to hear their "side" of the story. So my hope is that if everyone could publish our story in as many places as possible and in so doing call Ag&Mkts and tell them where it will be published, in addition to getting their "side". David, could you post the name and phone # of the PR person at Ag&Mkts here?
Again, thanks to everyone for your input and we will try to keep you posted. We have a website, Meadowsweetfarm dot com, and I hope to keep it up to date, but it depends on what comes up! We do have a farm to run and a family to homeschool! Minor details!
The threat of the contempt charge didn't come til later. I called the county sheriff to find out what rights we had. They sent a deputy to answer my questions. The deputy was familiar with criminal warrants, so she spent some time calling people in the know and eventually got in touch with the Ag & Mkts lawyer. He told her to tell me to have our lawyer contact him because the inspectors were making motions to file a contempt charge.
It seems suspicious that with a warrant the inspectors still seemed to want verbal approval to conduct an inspection. And what seems more suspicious is that they drove away without mentioning contempt, since if they had informed me of a contempt charge I would have told them to do the inspection.
Arguments such as Kathryn’s need to be heard by the courts, if the right to control ones food supply is to be preserved for the future. Re-legitimizing this business model is paramount.
The share model does not have to be restricted to dairy animals….the model fits quite well on beef and pork herds. Poultry and eggs could also work well within this framework. The key here is the right of the apartment dweller to own the animals that they eat, and make their own provisions to have them raised and harvested for their consumption. Buying clubs, partnerships, share programs have the personalized security that comes with intimacy. Entrusting a farmer with the creation of your sustenance is more comforting when you can look him in the eye, ask him questions and listen to the tenor and substance of his answers. Seeing the farm, spending time with the animals, can only be a positive for the urbanite that wants the opportunity.
Quite often these share programs spring up from people that have started operations to create a food supply for their families alone. By sharing this food supply, consumers can get piece of mind, knowing that the food is also on the farmer’s children’s plate. In effect, the ‘partners’ become an extension of the family. Sure sounds like this type of community building would be beneficial for society as a whole. Why would anyone in their right mind discourage that?
If the Ag&Mkts lawyers are reading this ,I would like to know how they let Topps Meat company sell 88 million quarter pounders without discovering that the meat was contaminated with e-coli 0157:H7. Perhaps Topps wasn't "in compliance" for the past year. Or more likely no one was available to check on them because everyone was busy with the crackdown on farmers and consumers who are working on an alternative to factory food.
When huge lots of contaminated food are being sold to the public without any oversite and at the same time people are harrassed for working on a solution to the problem,it is easy to see why we have contempt for the state departments of agribusiness and for the federal agencies like USDA andFDA.
http://toppsmeat-recall.com/html/news/news_3.html
Topps Meat Expands Recall of Ground Beef Products For Possible E. coli O157:H7 Contamination
Topps Meat Company, LLC, an Elizabeth, NJ, establishment, is voluntarily expanding its Sept. 25 recall to include a total of approximately 21.7 million pounds of frozen ground beef products because they may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service announced today.
The recall is being expanded based on an additional positive product sample reported by the New York Health Department, reported illnesses and findings from a food safety assessment conducted by FSIS at the establishment.
There are currently 25 illnesses under investigation in Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. An investigation carried out by the New York Department of Health in coordination with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, preceded the recall of Sept. 25.
Frozen products still in commerce with an unexpired sell-by date are subject to this recall expansion. The company applies a one-year sell-by date to their frozen products. For best quality, FSIS recommends consumers use any frozen ground beef products within three to four months of the stated sell-by date. It is important that consumers look for the recalled products and return them if found in their freezers.
The frozen ground beef products were produced on various dates between Sept. 25, 2006, and Sept. 25, 2007, and were distributed to food service institutions in the New York metropolitan area and to retail establishments nationwide.
Each package bears the establishment number “Est. 9748” inside the USDA mark of inspection as well as a sell-by date between “SEP 25 07” and “SEP 25 08.”
Makes you think twice about more than hamburger!!!