Back in early 2005, I believe while I was scanning information on the FDA’s web site, I saw a mention about problems with raw milk at Dee Creek Farm in Washington state.
Knowing of the FDA’s tendency to, shall we say, distort facts, I decided I wanted to learn more about not only this situation, but the entire matter of raw milk.
My first step was to try to telephone the owners of Dee Creek Farm, and get their version of what happened.
They didn’t respond to my calls then, nor a year later, as I continued trying to monitor their efforts to get their farm back in operation. In general, I’d say about half the farmers I try to call when I see references to regulatory problems with raw milk won’t get back to me.
I mention this situation for two reasons. First, I now see that Dee Creek is back in operation, although still with much controversy surrounding the owners’ efforts.
I have little doubt that their story has been distorted significantly as they’ve made their way through regulatory hell.
Second, I contrast their decision (and those of the others who won’t talk) to, as Don Neeper puts it, “stay in the shadows,” with that of Mark McAfee, when the California regulators shut down his farm last September. For about ten days, McAfee stayed quiet, hoping the regulators would determine his farm was clean, and allow him to reopen. When that didn’t happen, he decided to talk.
I called McAfee by chance on the day he decided to take off the gloves. He told me his side of the story, I wrote about it, along with media in his area, and within a couple weeks he was back in business.
My point is that farmers who want to be in the raw milk business can’t hide in the shadows. They certainly deserve all the help they can get from their customers, but when all is said and done, they have to be ready to stand up for themselves, and fight. I’m not saying that’s easy, because the regulators have limitless funds and staffs of lawyers. But as I suggested in my previous posting, the regulators really don’t like the glare of publicity, especially when they know they are being abusive.
There are lots of ways to fight at low cost against a well-armed and well-financed enemy. It’s what guerilla warfare is all about. And when you are fighting for your rights, the other side usually isn’t going to give up easily.
When a farmer is threatened as in the case of the Schmitmeyers and Arlie Stutzman, everyone involved should be very vocal and we’ve been effective with strategically-written press releases to get our message out. Unfortunately we weren’t as successful when Gary Oaks was prosecuted, and I regret that I wasn’t able to convince him to make his story public earlier. He was detained just a few weeks after our "$2 Gallon of Milk" press release http://www.mindspring.com/~rawmilk/WAP-PR-02-28-2006.pdf gained a tremendous amount of publicity for Arlie Stutmzan, and we could have brought the roof down on the ODA had we been able to follow it up with Gary’s story. I did speak to him and his wife a few days after he was released from the hospital but was unable to convince them to participate. They wanted to try appeasing the agencies involved and were afraid that a press release would hurt their legal chances. I felt that Gary was making the wrong decision by not speaking out, but had to respect his choice and I scrapped the draft press release that I had put together. It did strike me that Gary was very concerned about the children in his herdshare who were intolerant of commercial milk and were now being denied access to his milk.
I may seem to be contradicting myself, so to summarize I don’t have any problem with farmers keeping a low profile but if raided or prosecuted everyone involved should be as vocal as possible. Local media are usually more than willing to run stories exposing governmental oppression or over-reach, and press releases can be effective tools in such asymmetrical warefare.
Of course I wholeheartedly agree. I personally think we raw milk providers need to at least attempt to be diversified. If we could all afford to walk away from our farms it would change alot, imo. With hungry mouths to feed and looming mortgages, it makes it very tempting to cave. In contrast, how powerful would it be if we could actualy force the bueracrats to physically shut us down instead of caving into their unconstitutional demands just to keep the money flowing?
I would like to see hundreds of small dairys start up as a sideline or hobby for health and business minded families. This small, local model holds the key to our long term freedom.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/06-14-2007/0004608752&EDATE=
During the OEFFA conference in Granville, OH this past March Sally Fallon mentioned that the WAPF would be announcing a national "Raw Milk Defense Fund" modelled after the home-schooling movement’s legal defense. Her idea was that all raw milk producers would contribute a small portion of their earnings to the fund, which would have lawyers on call and available to respond to any challenges such as what is happening in NY and PA. The WAPF was supposed to be launching the program this summer but so far I haven’t heard anything about it. It certainly sounded like a good idea and I think that it would be very helpful to have right now!
The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listeria_monocytogenes) indicates that there are newer tests that quantify very low numbers of organisms, which makes me wonder if these new detection mechanisms are being brought to bear against the PA & NY dairies.
———————
http://www.ecolab.com/PublicHealth/Listeria.asp
Background
The FDA/Food Safety and Inspection Service risk assessment reinforces epidemiological conclusions that foodborne listeriosis is a moderately rare, although severe, disease. A study by the Food Product Association showed it is likely that low levels of L. monocytogenes are consumed routinely with limited effect.It is believed that 5 percent of the general population may be asymptomatic carriers of Listeria, but the percentage may be higher in particular groups, such as slaughterhouse workers.
The United States has a zero tolerance for Listeria in ready-to-eat foods, but some other countries permit low levels to be present. The 2003 WHO/FAO risk assessment concluded that there is no epidemiological evidence that demonstrates whether a zero or non-zero tolerance policy leads to a greater rate of listeriosis. Estimates of disease rates between different countries must be considered with caution because of different surveillance and reporting systems, but the comparable overall rates of listeriosis ranges from 0.1 to 11.3 cases per million persons per year in Europe, 3.4 to 4.4 cases per million people per year in the United States, and 3 cases per million per year in Australia. The U.S. FDA is considering comments on a petition to reassess the zero tolerance policy based on risk assessment results. Information on Listeria is available from several sources.
Extensive risk assessments and analyses have been conducted by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Food and Drug Administration/FSIS9, World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization, and International Life Sciences Institute to identify factors that contribute to risk of illness. This research is important because the prevalence in the food supply does not match the rate of illness in the population, and because the outcome of illness in susceptible individuals is very severe. These assessments have generally concluded that the ability of a food to support growth of Listeria enhances risk.
An article on the SlowFood web site (http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=3E6E345B0f043257ACinP3AA730C) refers to Listeria in cheese, and states:
"Pasteurized cheeses have much less complexity than raw milk cheeses and their flavor is often described as ‘bland’. But the most controversial issue is the question of Listeria monocytogenes, a bacterium that is particularly dangerous for people in precarious health. It is claimed that Listeria is eliminated by pasteurization.
It has been shown, however, that the growth of this bacterium is twice as slow in raw milk cheeses as in pasteurized cheeses, because raw milk contains lactoperoxidases, enzymes that inhibit the growth of bacteria. What was written in Bulletin no.369 of the International Dairy Federation in 2001 remains valid: ‘there are no data to indicate that mandatory pasteurization would lead to greater safety of milk and dairy products’."
Concerning the legal defense fund, we are working on it, and it will be launched within the next month, hopefully on July 4th.
This is a Raw Milk dairy which has been in operation for over 20 years without a problem of any kind. For many of those years they were a dairy of distinction and sent in weekly samples for testing. Throughout both "outbreaks" many of us continued to drink the milk without any ill effect. The vet came and independently tested the cows and found them not to be suffering from listeriousis. The source of the contamination is a mystery. The dairy only has the Ag Departments word that there was an outbreak or problem.
For those who regularly drink Raw Milk, I think there is a level of immunity which builds up to normal pathogens which may enter the milk. Properly handled these pathogens never get to critical levels any way. The only real problem would be if someone from the city, or taking antibiotics regularly, were to drink some of the milk. Then they might have an issue. The rest of us are protects by familiarity with the benefits and nature of Raw Milk.
Because Listeria grows more rapidly in pasteurized products and cooked meats I think that often these "outbreaks" are really the occurence of cross-contamination on behalf of the testers. It is a convenient way to harass Raw Milk dairies and keep the public fearful of Raw Milk, without actually having to prove anything. The current trend with the USDA and state Ag Depts is to keep the public scared of any sort of animal disease or health issue which may come from them, regardless of their actual existence or hazards. I fear it is part of a systematic campaign to not only do away with Raw Milk–on behalf of the commercial dairy industries–but to also harm small farmers in more general ways. Consumers must be informed and allowed to maintain the right to choose for themselves what they want to eat. We, as farmers who sell locally, have a right to speak out against Ag. Dept hazing, injustice and absurd regulations and to keep consumer–both our own and the general public–informed on how their tax dollars are being wasted.