Not So Fast, As Key CA Ag Legislator Vows to "Protect" Us; Wanted: 10,000 Class Action Plaintiffs
Wednesday, October 31, 2007 at 09:07PM 
Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures may have thought his Monday Sacramento meeting designed to overturn AB 1735 went well, but two days later, the most important legislative target in his campaign remains unconvinced.
In an email to individuals who wrote her protesting the legislation, the chairperson of the California Assembly Agriculture Committee, Nicole Parra (pictured at right) today defends the 10-coliform-per-milliliter maximum for raw milk, describing it in terms that only bureaucrats could love—a fulfillment of the legislature’s duty to “protect” the public health. Here’s the heart of her note:
“Unfortunately, recent information falsely asserts that AB 1735 will ban raw milk sales in the State of California. You will be pleased to learn that, contrary to misconceptions, AB 1735 does not ban the sale of raw milk in California.
“AB 1735 requires a coliform count of less than 10 per milliliter for raw fluid milk intended for direct human consumption. This standard has been implemented in a number of other states, and as their experience suggests, the standard set by AB 1735 will not affect the availability of raw milk in California. The State of Washington, which has had this standard in place for several years, has approximately 20 producers who continue to provide raw milk to consumers.
“Passing AB 1735 was a way for the Legislature to fulfill our responsibility to help protect the public health, while acknowledging the needs of those who produce and drink raw milk.”
I have a sneaking suspicion that not many California raw milk drinkers "will be pleased to learn" of this legislator's reassurance about the availability of raw milk. Nor will they welcome her refrain about "our responsibility to help protect the public health." (You can email the Assembly member at Assemblymember.Parra@assembly.ca.gov.)
They know that anywhere from 25% (the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s estimate) to 80% (Organic Pastures’ estimate) of California raw milk won’t meet the standard. With raw milk already in high demand, it’s reasonable to assume that many current customers will be shut out. Moreover, at least some dairy farmers in Washington are getting their milk to market without meeting the coliform standard, because of lax enforcement. With all the publicity, CDFA can be expected to strictly enforce the new standard next year.
Ironically, Assemblywoman Parra’s territory includes Organic Pastures’ base, Fresno County. Probably more significant, when a committee chairperson decides to go one way on a piece of legislation, other committee members tend to follow along.
Clearly, the decibel level of protests isn’t yet loud enough for the legislators to hear.
One person trying to raise it is Aajonus Vonderplanitz, a raw-food advocate who successfully fought a ban of raw milk by Los Angeles County in 1999.
He promises to file for a court injunction against enforcement of AB1735, and, “Then, we need to establish a class action suit against CA Agriculture Committee members, Governor, Surgeon General and many John Does in the CDHS who were responsible for submitting the discriminatory, unscientifically unwarranted dairy changes to CA law. Also notice that they made the new laws punishable by criminal action rather than infractions. I will need everyone who is willing to join the class action suit. It would be very effective if 10,000 California residents were plaintiffs.”
If you are interested in joining the class action suit, email Theo Copley at tcopley@ziplink.net. Request a class action form, along with information on donating to a legal fund.
Aajonus also provides suggested alternative legislation that is more flexible in required bacteria counts. (You can request the text as well.)
Given the assemblywoman’s email, I’m wondering how “stealth” the CDFA was in getting the new standard passed. Either she’s covering her rear end in not wanting to admit she wasn’t minding the store as chairperson of the agriculture committee in appreciating the importance of AB 1735, or else she really believes in it.
Either way, this situation is shaping up as a major test of wills in the battle over raw milk, with huge long-term consequences.
Reader Comments (48)
I tried email that woman, since I do not live in that area,it would not accept my email. I also tried emailing my representative and I got an error page.
Will they be making laws/bills to clean up the feed-lot dairies? The beef feed-lots? The hatcheries? Will they outlaw raw fish? Will they investigate the nutritional value of the "feed" that goes into the stock for our consumption? The conditions that these animals are kept? What's next on the agenda to take away or dictate? If you do not want raw milk, raw fish, etc, then don't buy it. I don't want feed lot milk, and I don't buy it.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/finally-some-hard-data-on-illnesses-from-raw-milkthe-governm.html"
Only @59 illnesses per year for a tad over 30 years? That does say a whole lot! And how many illnesses from pasteurized milk products in that same time frame? In 1985 alone, there was well over 150 illnesses.
Yes indeed, raw milk is being picked on.
Dear Ms. Parra,
Thank you for your response. I understand the bill, and I understand the coliform requirement. I believe the coliform requirement is unnecessarily low, and will prevent the sale of a lot of healthy milk. I don't believe this bill protects our safety at all; in fact, I believe it actually impinges on our freedom to buy raw milk, punishes small dairy farms, and protects industrial-scale dairy farmers in our state from competition. E. Coli 0157:H7 is only one of many coliform bacteria; many are beneficial to our health. Your bill does nothing to isolate the dangerous strain. Has your committee even considered setting the same standard for coliform in pasteurized milk? I don't imagine it has. Yet my sources tell me that most pasteurized milk tests higher for coliform than most raw milk.
AB 1735 is, in my opinion, a poorly disguised below-the-belt hit at small raw milk producers, and has nothing to do with public health and safety. I urge you to work with lawmakers to remove the coliform requirement before the law goes into effect.
Thank you.
Don't be lulled into this thinking. Big Dairy is quite wealthy and holds tremendous influence in our government. They also feel that THEY, through the PMO, have exclusive rights to the product. Their concern is that 'incidences' with raw milk will adversely affect the monopoly they work tirelessly to maintain. Their ONLY concern is the bottom line. These are the people, who in true Marxist fashion, strive to control the market, and profit at the expense of both farmers and retailers. Check out the line of lawsuits against them and it will open your eyes to their anti-free-market tactics.
This bill was passed low key, on purpose, with the sole intent on striking a blow to the high profile poster boy for raw milk. Those that send their kids to college by boiling milk called in some chips on this one…and this won’t be the last time they do.
It’s time for the people to take back their government. Serving big campaign donors has been twisted into protecting the public. We’ve seen this time and time again. Every raw milk drinker in this country needs to contact their representatives…whether they live in Ca or not. For if we don’t flex our muscle now, and let our lawmakers know our numbers, the financial strength of the ‘dead milk’ dealers will prevail. Establishing relationships with legislators is our best protection of continued supply.
milkfarmer
PS it would be interesting to know the amount of money that Little Miss Protector has taken from Big Dairy. I'd bet it's not insignificant.
Also, I can't even find an e-mail address for Nicole Parra. So much for contacting her.
http://www.fpa-food.org/content/about/staff.asp
Cal Dooley was named President and Chief Executive Officer of the Food Products Association (FPA) in 2005 and is now the President and Chief Executive Officer of GMA/FPA (Grocery Manufacturers of America/ Food Products association). Dooley served as a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1991 to 2004, representing the 20th District of California. He served on the House Agriculture Committee, and was Ranking Minority Member of the Agriculture Subcommittee on Department Operations, Oversight, Nutrition and Forestry. He also served on the House Resources Committee. Dooley is a fourth-generation farmer and partner in Dooley Farms, growing cotton, alfalfa and walnuts in California's San Joaquin Valley. Dooley earned a Bachelors degree in Agricultural Economics from the University of California, Davis and, as a Sloan Fellow, earned a Masters degree in Management from Stanford University. He and his wife, Linda, have two daughters, Brooke and Emily.
Is it possible that MS. Parra has been influenced a bit by her work experience with this former CongressionalRepresentative?
Please try to send your e-mails again to Nicole Parra. I was able to send her a few choice words of my own at the following e-mail address:
Assemblymember.Parra@assembly.ca.gov
You can use this same e-mail address pattern above when e-mailing your own California representative just by substituting his or her last name in place of Parra.
In addition, if you want to speak your mind to any and all members of the California Senate Agriculture committee too, you can use this e-mail address pattern:
senator.name@sen.ca.gov
Example: senator.ducheny@sen.ca.gov
Thank you very much to everyone who has gotten into the ring to fight the good fight so far for reminding our publicly elected representatives of the California legislature that democracy is a participation sport--whether they like it or not!
Looks like Cal Dooley hates Real Milk just as much as he hates Real Chocolate!
According to the Seattle Times, it was the Grocery Manufacturers Association who ordered the FDA to carry the ball for them in making the new FDA plan to allow chocolate's main ingredient, cacao, to be replaced with all sorts of substitutes, including VEGETABLE OIL! The FDA could have required fake chocolate to be labeled "chocolate-ish," "chocolate-flavored," or "pseudo-chocolate" or something similar, but then that would have been too much like that truth-in-labeling thing for the FDA (we wouldn't want all these ignorant consumers to become confused now, would we? Heh, heh!)
Last time I checked, groceries were grown, not built.
A BIT EXTREME DONT YOU THINK?
Diane, I will write her!!
My other question though: what does a class action suit entail? Sorry, a tad bit ignorant here.
Cancer and heart disease, rare a hundred years ago, now claim millions of lives, despite uncalculated billions spent on medical research and care. One third of the population suffers from allergies. One in ten will have ulcers. Every year, one quarter of a million infants are born with a birth defect. Arthritis, digestive disorders, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, osteoporosis, dementia, epilepsy, and chronic fatigue afflict a significant majority of us.
All these diseases were extremely rare before food became an industrial commodity! That, to me, is extreme!
Our food production and medical care is all about MONEY. That is extreme. We no longer even know what health is. that is terribly extreme.
Here's a quick example: This morning I heard a sound-bite advertisement for Planned Parenthood. They proclaim that they are all about "prevention." Their example: Planned Parenthood promotes mammograms! Need we be reminded that mammograms are all about detecting existing disease?!
The average Joe in America has been trained to believe the bold lie that business and government are interested in his welfare. Manufactured food is the most pervasive and destructive emblems of that lie.
Not only that but here is yet another example of not informing the masses properly. Mammograms are highly debated by natural physisians because they damage cancer cells and potentially spread the cancer.Just one little article http://www.newstarget.com/021608.html
"The CDC data that Pete Kennedy obtained a few months back showed that raw milk has been responsible for an average 59 illnesses per year from 1973-2005.
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/finally-some-hard-data-on-illnesses-from-raw-milkthe-governm.html"
Only @59 illnesses per year for a tad over 30 years? That does say a whole lot! And how many illnesses from pasteurized milk products in that same time frame? In 1985 alone, there was well over 150 illnesses.
Yes indeed, raw milk is being picked on.
***
59 people per year (compared to 150) is not very many in absolute terms, but in relative terms, it's a hell of a lot. Let's assume that raw milk is consumed by only 1% of the population. That means that, multiplied by 99 (the percent assumed of consumers drinking pasteurized milk), that's 5,841! That would be how many people would be getting sick off of raw milk if the same number of people were drinking it as do pasteurized milk. It seems it's a fact of life that raw milk is more risky than pasteurized milk - no one's getting picked on by this information.
(If raw milk consumption is 5%, then the total is 1121, if 10%, it's 531. Still way more than 150. I'm including these figures because I don't know what the percent consumption of raw milk is, but I suspect that it's between 1-5%)
This is just what we can conclude from the numbers you gave, I would rather check the original data myself before reaching a firm conclusion, but I think its safe to say that you're ignoring the fact that the number of people that get sick off of raw milk per year is large considering how few people drink it.
This doesn't mean that raw milk should be banned, but considering the number of outbreaks of E. coli in raw milk, particularly last year, I don't think the producers know how to produce it safely.
The trouble I have with extrapolating the numbers is that it is very difficult for us to know what TYPE of raw milk those 59 people drank. Was it mass produced, confinement operation milk that was meant to be pasteurized or grass-fed, pastured cows from a family farm?
There ARE producers who produce raw milk safely. And yes, they may make a mistake that causes someone to get sick. But they are HUMAN, and we humans all make mistakes. There are also unscrupulous, money hungry jerks who don't care about doing things the right way. I think it should be up to each individual to have the RIGHT to find out and decide for themselves if raw milk and the people who produce it can be trusted.
Everything comes down to education.