Navigation
Search

Login
« State Lackeys: When It Comes to Raw Milk, Ag Agencies Do the FDA’s Bidding; Pay Me Now Or... | Main | Seeing Is Believing; Which Home Medical Tests Are Acceptable? »
Sunday
10Jun

One More Time: What You Think You See Isn’t Necessarily What You Get When You Write About Raw Milk

bigstockphoto_Small_Dog_In_A_Magician_Hat_1145817.jpgOne thing I’ve learned in nine months of writing about raw milk is that the story I think I’m chasing down isn’t necessarily the real story.

As just one example, last November I saw a small-town Ohio newspaper item about a Kentucky farmer who was fined a few hundred dollars for selling raw milk in Ohio. Seemed pretty straightforward...until I called the farmer, Gary Oaks, and learned that he had been abused and traumatized in a raw milk sting in Cincinnati the previous spring (a story I wrote up in a BusinessWeek.com column).

Then today I read in a small New York community paper that Breese Hollow Dairy in upstate New York had been fined $300 for having contaminated raw milk. I decided to call the farm's owner, Chuck Phippen.

We wound up talking for nearly an hour, and it turns out there is much more to the $300 fine than just $300.

Phippen explained how even though New York is generally thought to be sympathetic toward raw milk, in reality the state inspects his farm, requires him to keep a list of customers that it then monitors, and tests his milk three times a month. This isn't benign stuff, though. The state is “constantly hassling us”; sometimes agents even sit in his driveway and question or otherwise intimidate customers, he says.

Most recently, in early April, state agricultural inspectors said they found listeria bacteria in his milk—the first time he had had any issues in the two years he’s had a state permit to sell raw milk (one of 15 farms in the state that has such a permit) and in eleven years of selling milk before getting the permit. Coincidentally, they found evidence of contamination in the milk of several other raw milk farmers Phippen knows.

The state forced Phippen to issue one of those press releases that announces the finding—kind of like a modern version of a scarlet letter—and also forced him to discontinue selling milk for several weeks, until a re-test could confirm his milk was okay. The press release was, of course, picked up on the front page of a local paper. (Because the paper charges a fee for article access, I’ve linked to a summary.)

“I was fined $300,” says Phippen. “I have to sell a lot of milk—166 gallons—to make $300 to pay that fine.” He has 50 cows, and sells 40 to 50 gallons a week of raw milk direct from the farm at $5 a gallon, under state rules. (He sells additional milk to a processor as organic milk for pasteurization.)

Phippen theorizes that the state is giving him and other raw milk farmers trouble because demand for raw milk is growing. He is limited in what he can sell because consumers are put off from traveling the many miles most must drive to reach his outpost. He says he knows consumers who pay Organic Pastures $18 a gallon, plus shipping, to have their milk (labeled as pet food) sent to New York from the California dairy.

Phippen would like to see some kind of cooperative arrangement that allows his milk to be transported to groups of consumers who actively seek out raw milk. Along with many other farmers, Phippen says, “We aren’t advocating selling raw milk everywhere. But the choice should be there.”

As I said, what you see—in press releases, media articles, and blog postings—often isn’t what you get when it comes to raw milk.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

I've also been monitoring the steady stream of raw milk alerts that have been coming out of Pennsylvania & New York starting with Stump Acres Dairy in March. It seems to have started immediately after the FDA's March 1st press release (http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2007/NEW01576.html) warning of the dangers of raw milk, which itself suspiciously came out in the middle of the letter-writing campaign against the Michigan Department of Agriculture and the FDA in the Family Farms Co-op case. We also have the pending raw milk bills in Maryland, North Carolina and Ohio, which makes you wonder if these "contamination" alerts are being orchestrated to unnerve legislators and diffuse support for the changing the laws. As David mentioned in one of his previous posts, no-one is reported to have become ill as the result of drinking milk from these dairies but the stories are carried by all the local papers and news media with dire warnings about destroying any remaining products.


Don Neeper


June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDon Neeper
It's extremely important that we understand the orchestration aspects of all this, since in typical FDA/CDC fashion, these raids and consequent publicities will likely be conflated all out of proportion, just like rumors, and then become "evidence" in the hands of the authorities. This is an area where the information sharing and dialogue which the Internet permits (and is exemplified by this blog) truly means power, since information is power. Paul Revere had a horse. We have the Internet.
June 11, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
The observant Jew's blog about raw milk that David links to is no longer there. Hope it came down before any damage had been done.
June 12, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterLynn McGaha
Lynn, thanks for the alert. I made some adjustments to the posting to allow for that change, and avoid possible damage.
June 12, 2007 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Gumpert

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.