NY Raw Milk Producer Asks Court to End “Harassment, Intimidation” of LLC Members; Good-Cop-Bad-Cop Routine in CA Mess?
Tuesday, December 11, 2007 at 03:48PM Together with 121 “members” of the limited liability company that owns their dairy’s cows, Barbara and Steve Smith have filed suit in state court against New York’s agriculture commissioner and dairy services director, seeking an order preventing these officials from interfering with distribution of raw milk to members.
The suit grows out of the seizure last Oct. 11 by New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets of raw milk, along with yogurt and buttermilk made from raw milk, at Meadowsweet Dairy in Lodi, NY. The Smiths refused to attend a follow-on hearing to explain why the products shouldn’t be destroyed, arguing that the state regulators didn’t have the authority to regulate their products.
That seizure was actually just one in a series of regulatory actions, which I described in a posting Oct. 3, and which attracted a wide variety of comments, including amplification by Barbara Smith.
According to the suit, here is what the state did when the Smiths didn’t show up: “On October 31, 2007, a ‘Legal Assistant’ of the Department sent a letter to the Dairy LLC and to the Smiths, alleging that they have been ‘selling, offering for sale, or otherwise making available raw milk for consumption by the consumers’ in May, June and July 2007. The letter also indicated that administrative penalties in the amount of $1,000 have been levied.”
The suit argues, “The Smiths do not sell, offer for sale, or otherwise make available ‘milk’ or ‘milk products’ to the consuming public. The Defendants Commissioner and Director are authorized by law to regulate only in the matter of the public’s health, safety and welfare. The Commissioner and the Director do not have the authority to regulate the Smiths when they produce, handle and manage raw milk and raw milk products produced by the Dairy LLC’s cows when that raw milk and those raw milk products are made available only to the members of the Dairy LLC.”
Among other things, it says "the court should issue a declaration that the members of the Dairy LLC can pick up their raw milk and their raw milk products from the Smiths' farm or market stands free from harassment, intimidation, interference or hindrance by Defendants."
The suit is significant on a number of levels. It is the first to be filed by the Farm to Conumer Legal Defense Fund, which was formed last summer. (The suit was filed by David G. Cox of Lane, Alton & Horst, a Columbus, OH, firm.)
It is also a significant challenge to a major state’s efforts to run roughshod over the cowshare concept, whereby farmers organize legal arrangements to provide consumers with ownership of the cows that produce their milk. This arrangement avoids prohibitions or strict regulations in many states on sale of raw milk. For example, New York issues permits to farmers allowing sales of raw milk to consumers, but doesn’t allow sale of other products like yogurt, kefir, and butter.
I expect this suit will be hard fought, possibly over a long period of time, if appeals result. It could help plow some new legal ground, and bring the issue of raw milk even more prominently into the public eye.
***
I’m having difficulty trying to make sense of the situation in California regarding AB1735, the stealth legislation enacted last month that would set tight standards on coliforms in raw milk.
We’ve been asked to contribute to a legal defense fund to finance a suit challenging the legislation. We’ve been told to sign up for a class action suit. We’ve been told to write and fax legislators.
Yesterday, Organic Pastures put out an alert that the California assembly is set to reverse AB1735, but is waiting for the state secretary of agriculture to be on board. Today, Organic Pastures says there’s another state senator who must be convinced.
I definitely don’t want to be a spoilsport taking pot shots at people like Mark McAfee and others who are working their tails off to change this situation. The fact that they’ve been able to rally the kind of support they have is impressive.
I just don’t have a great feeling about the whole thing. It reminds me a little of the bind small companies sometimes get into when they are seeking venture capital investment. Venture capitalists like to invest in groups of three, or four, or even five. What sometimes happens when a group is intrigued with a small company, but having some doubts, is they’ll tell the entrepreneur that everything is set to go, but Fred over at ABC Ventures is holding things up. So the entrepreneur tries to convince Fred, and when Fred finally says yes, suddenly it’s Bob at DEF Ventures who’s having a problem. And on it goes, as the clock ticks and the entrepreneur is running out of money, energy, and enthusiasm.
What bothers me is my sense that AB1735 is much more significant to the agriculture interests than most of us realize. It didn’t happen by accident, but was carefully calculated to send a strong message in the country’s largest agricultural state. The same kind of thing has been happening around the country with regard to the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). States have been sneaking legislation and administrative orders through, and each time small farms think they’ve fought off an attack, it reappears elsewhere.
As far as AB1735 goes, I hope I’m wrong.
Reader Comments (16)
I wonder just what is so crucial that brings the "powers that be" crashing down on not only the small farmers, but the raw dairy as well. What is it that they are fearing? Food safety? It is obvious that isn't it,because if it was, then raw fish, meats would be banned too. I've no doubt that money is the bottom line in this issue, I just haven't placed exactly where yet.
The benefits of raw dairy has enabled me to connect many many dots and its not a pretty picture, but thankfully it also helps one avoid other unnecessary problems foisted on us by the system.
Have a great day Sylvia.
Don
Especially, since recently I have become convinced more than ever that:
a) I can't tolerate commercial dairy
b) I thrive on raw dairy, especially when I ferment it
c) I am also wheat sensitive and have to avoid soy, corn and grain in general - except oats, that is fine - for now.
I am a young person, too!
I don't know where this country is going..
The pressure must be ramped up a notch.
If Big Dairy and the CDFA want war then I'm sure Mark will oblige them. If they continue this tact and use the power of midnight anonymity to subvert the raw milk movement then they are indeed fools.
It would be interesting to see a national campaign AGAINST the P&H stuff. Till now, many have only been stressing the positives of raw milk. If we take that energy and put it to a different use we'll drive their market share to shreds. It's hard to stay on the high road when you're skirmishing with those on the low road.
Hopefully Mark has got his plan (and the laboratory) ready.
It may sound 'conspiracy theory' but it quacks like Henry Kissinger, who said: "Control the money and you can control whole continents, control the food and you control the people." More about controlling crop seeds at Global Research: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529
I find the experiments of growing pharmaceuticals in GMO corn equally scary. Not only can the pollen drift, but it makes one wonder if there will be intentional drugging of the populace via the ubiquitous HFCS. Any number of specifically targeted scenarios pop into my imagination when I think about FEMA's response to hurricane Katrina.
Don't worry. We're ready to go if the legislative front crashes. The Fund is in this for the long haul. Ya' gotta believe brother!
(P.S. We're working on NAIS too).
If you live in an area with adequate rainfall you certainly can grow your own food with relative ease (I assume you are not in a dastardly Home Owner Association that doesn't permit veggie gardens, even in the back yard, but they do exist!).
But as I consider how to improve the productivity of my "lazy edible landscaping" (citrus & fig trees, a small Square Foot Garden, some artichokes & herbs) I am reminded that as a Southern California resident, water is a very crucial issue in the future. Here, and in many other areas, home gardens and agriculture are artificially irrigated. So I surely can grow more edibles on my property, I can only do so if I have water. I am thinking of looking into getting a rainwater collection system to save the winter rains for the many rainless months we experience spring-late fall.
I was all set to get some backyard pet chickens for a few eggs and our HOA revised the CCRs and now specifically prohibits poultry as pets, though the city allows them in all residential areas, with a few restrictions. The new CCRs havn't passed yet, but I don't think I'd get enough support to get that line thrown out (someone may even have leaked my chicken plans to the wrong people!). Even if I vote against it, if the new CCRs pass (they will, I'm sure) I have to abide by the rules - I signed on to that when I bought a house in this area (wouldn't do that again). But at least they don't object (yet) to my dwarf citrus trees, rainbow chard, herbs, bananas, and blueberries in the front garden.
My comment above, wherein I suggested the intent to prevent us from growing our own food, was based on something I read a couple of years ago in the Seed Savers magazine, which is not on the web, nor at my fingertips, and I can't remember the source, except that it was a Frenchman who founded an organization similar to Seed Savers, only to be shut down because there's some sort of EU regulation that prohibits selling open-pollinated seed without jumping through expensive hoops to register it (IIRC), such that only mega-corporate purveyors of hybrid seed could afford these regulations. This limits home-grown food to saving one's own seed and trading seed. If they've pulled this stunt in the EU, then it could get more draconian here.
We grow 90% of what we eat, but we don't save all our own seed for various reasons: weather; need to grow way more than practical in order to keep the largest number of alleles; wrong climate.
It may become too expensive and intrusive to raise one's own animal protein if NAIS passes. Only veganism would be possible.
Writing this reminds me of Monsanto's attempt to produce GMO alfalfa. This alone could destroy organic agriculture. I'm sure they'll try again to get this approved, and they probably are also working on modifying the rest of the legumes and staples, with full intent to transmit their genes throughout the land.
Lacedo, We've always saved our seeds, unless something new was to be planted, or it was bought,given as a gift or traded. What reason could there be for prohibiting the sell of open-pollinated seed? Isn't that how it's been done for centuries?
Yesterday, I was down in Layton, Hanford and Sanger areas. Not only did the stench of the factory farms creep through the cracks in my car's ventalation system, I was assaulted driving down I-99, of the said smells. The stench again reminded me why I don't buy that stuff. I wonder, if the general population realized exactly what those factory farms are like and how the animals live and what they eat, if they could see and smell the factory farms, would they demand they be cleaned up and the feed/environment changed? Or would they turn a blind eye?
Our neighborhood has had an HOA since it was built 25+ years ago, formed by the builder and turned over to the residents when the neighborhood was completed (tiny portion of a larger suburban developed area, only about 100 households - 25 single family home on our street and 75 condos on another three streets). We hadn't any experience with HOAs when we bought, and practicality and prices prevented us from buying a custom home. Now I wish I had made more sacrifices for the autonomy, but with the way prices have risen, it would make bad money sense to move. But we bought the hosue because of the large size of the lot, .39 acre with a nice slope creating privacy in back. The flat area around the house has a lot of potential to raise even more edibles. Our water is metered, so we pay for our consumption, plus sewer charges, which are based on consumption, not what goes into the sewer! Despite having one of the largest lots, we probalby have one of the smallest water bills. We conserve with automatic drip irrigation, minimal lawn area (would like to completely eliminate it), and dual flush toilets (.8g/1.6g), etc. A water collection system would save even more and before I have gutters installed I'd like to investigate that.
All these food issues have got me thinking that I have to get out of the lazy gardening mode and get serious about getting more from my own efforts.
When I lived in the Dallas area, I had strawberries as ground cover in the front yard along my walkway to the front door and around some little trees/bushes. Many people don't know the different lettuces, radishes, or even potato plants when they see them in the ground.
Could you use some shrubs/bushes to screen your garden area? Being creative to get around those rules of the HOA can be tricky.
In answer to your questions "What reason could there be for prohibiting the sell of open-pollinated seed? Isn't that how it's been done for centuries?" The answer is twofold. One is for profit. Two is in order to control populations that are becoming more resistant to globalization and the economic race to the bottom.
I found the reference I mentioned upthread:
My original source for my assertion is in an article in 'Seed Savers Exchange 2004 Harvest Edition' titled 'Kokopelli in Europe', a transcript of a speech by Dominique Guillet given to the 2004 annual convention of the Seed Savers Exchange.
The speech gave a history of 'Terre de Semences' the organization that Guillet formed in 1994 to sell organic heirloom seeds, and how he was put out of business by the new EU regulations. He then goes on to describe his current work with 'Association Kokopelli'.
Quoting from the speech:
"It is essential to note that everything that is eaten from the plate of a European citizen is registered in one of the National Vegetable Lists of the European Community. That is another way of saying that it is strictly against the law to grow, either for consumption or for seed production, a vegetable or cereal variety that has not been noted on one of these National Lists."
....(snip)....
"You do not realize that you still have so much freedom in this country [US]. You have no National List and anyone can sell or exchange or give seeds of whatever variety he wants, because there is no regulation to prevent it. In Europe each country has a National List, and you're not supposed to sell a variety of wheat, eggplant, tomato, whatever, for food or for seed if the variety is not registered on the National List."
From another source I found that it cost £45 to register each seed variety. Seed de Semences was offering 2,000 heirloom varieties and could not afford the registration fees.
------------
Look up "Order 81". This is one of L. Paul Bremer's '100 Orders' promulgated by the CPA on Iraq. Order 81 completely restructured Iraqi agriculture, forcing capitulation to the control of Monsanto and other agbiotech corporations. Ghali Hassan describes this regime in his 2005 article 'Biopiracy and GMOs: Fate of Iraq's agriculture' [http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_318.shtml
Have no doubt that Iraq was to be a showcase of an idealized neoliberal corporate-controlled economy. The article I linked in my prior comment outlines further plans for control of all food germ plasm.