Forget the CA Happy Talk, Says Aajonus Vonderplanitz--He Promises a Tough Second Suit
Tuesday, January 1, 2008 at 02:46PM I had an appropriately sobering New Year’s conversation with veteran raw milk combatant Aajonus Vonderplanitz, whom I had been trying to make contact with over the last couple days, since he announced his plan Sunday to raise $40,000 and file a new suit challenging AB 1735, California’s new ten-coliform-per-milliliter raw milk regulation that takes effect today.
He’s a health care practitioner who advocates a raw food diet, based heavily on raw dairy products, and he’s setting up a clinic in Thailand, so the best time to talk turned out to be about 1 this morning.
I’ve had some email correspondence with him over the last couple years, but this was our first actual conversation. I wanted to quiz him about his planned suit, since it struck me as an unfortunate dilution of the campaign against AB 1735. Why not combine forces, and funds, into one major suit, rather than split fund-raising efforts for two court actions?
Aajonus told me he only decided to back a second suit when he concluded that Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Ron Garthwaite of Claravale Farm, along with their attorney, Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, were “making a big mistake.”
The big failure of the suit they filed last week is that it doesn’t seek an immediate permanent injunction to halt enforcement of AB 1735. “You’ve got to file for an injunction.” Otherwise, the suit could take years to be heard, and in the meantime California’s Department of Food and Agriculture has no incentive not to enforce AB 1735.
In addition, the suit should be focused on the health injuries facing California consumers who would be denied raw milk by enactment of AB 1735, rather than on the constitutional issues of the suit filed last week. He said that while he was originally planning a class action suit, he decided on the injury-based suit to force the court to depose each individual claiming injury. “So far, we have 700 plaintiffs,” he said. “I would like 10,000 plaintiffs. If they have to depose each person, it will cost the state a fortune.”
As evidence of the OPDC-Claravale suit’s weakness, he points to the CDFA’s statement immediately after the suit was filed, in a San Francisco Chronicle article, that the agency intends to immediately begin enfocement of AB 1735.
He says he tried to convince Mark, Ron, and Gary of their error, but they wouldn’t listen. “They think I’m not an attorney and I don’t know what I am talking about. I had to let them see they fucked up. That’s part of the learning process.”
Now that the screwup is apparent, he is moving ahead with the new suit, which he says will seek injunctive relief. For Aajonus’ explanation of his action, and the SF Chronicle article, see his blog posting on a raw-food web site.
Aajonus told me he has been fighting against unreasonable raw milk regulations since 1970, and claims he’s had success over the years changing the regulations in six states: Nebraska, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New York, Arizona, and California. His biggest success was in California, in 2000 and 2001, when he was instrumental in overturning Los Angeles County prohibitions on raw milk, which eventually led to the relaxation of regulations allowing retail sales by Organic Pastures and Claravale.
“I’ve studied the law for seven years. I put Los Angeles County through a legal process for seven years.”
He sees the current situation in California regarding AB 1735 as typical of the state and federal campaigns against raw milk. “It’s the same old stuff. They just re-attack. Every two to four years, they re-attack.”
Aajonus makes a lot of sense. I’ve pointed out several times my sense that Mark McAfee is being too trusting of assurances from state officials that they’ll support repeal of AB 1735. I understand that Mark is trying to lobby via consumer pressure, using the court suit as last-ditch threat.
But words that aren’t written down in some kind of legal or legislative form have no meaning to the regulators. Aajonus is saying that the only language they understand is active farmer resistance, substantive court action, and real legislation. In AB 1735, the regulators have the latter. For information on Aajonus' planned legal campaign, go to www.saverawmilk.org.
Reader Comments (18)
Anyone know whether 'BarfBlog" ( http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/ )is legitimate or a front group? I think the answer is obvious in this gratuitous Christmas post: Raw Milk and Sprouts Sicken Santa: http://tinyurl.com/2xu9rp This is propaganda, pure and simple. No facts, just insinuation.
It might be worth bookmarking the 'raw milk' tag for that blog, and checking often: http://barfblog.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/raw-milk/
Anyone familiar with the Glendora Stump/Stump Acres Dairy in New Salem, PA (near me, but I hadn't patronized this dairy) story? The articles from the York Daily record and York Dispatch are already archived. This is from March 2007. Apparently 2 people got salmonella, yet the Stump family did not get sick. All I found was a snippet here: ( http://tinyurl.com/24vdwb ): "The story says that the state Department of Health reported that two people have been sick from the milk and has advised people who have bought raw milk from Stump Acres to immediately discard it. Stump was cited as saying that suspensions have occurred more than once at the farm, and that in each case researchers found it was not the milk, but something else the individuals ingested that made them sick, adding, "Last year, it was the same thing. We couldn't sell (raw milk) for three days or four days. Turns out, the person was sick from chicken they ate and not from our milk." Stump was further cited as saying that word in the farming community is that the agriculture department sends people in posing as customers to buy the milk, which is tough to obtain in the mid-Atlantic region, adding, "That's just going a little too far. We need to let the world know this is what our government here is doing." Health and agriculture officials were cited as saying in a news release that raw milk samples obtained from Stump Acres and its customers tested positive at the health department's Bureau of Laboratories in Harrisburg."
I only found one mention of Stump acres on this blog, from April 20 ( http://tinyurl.com/2hpsxl ), but no follow-up. What happened to Stump Acres?
I'm concerned based on this sentence from the San Francisco Chronicle article about the McAfee law suit: "Van Rein, however, said California Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura has checked with his counterparts in Washington and Pennsylvania, which also have adopted a 10-coliform limit, "to make sure their dairies have been able to comply."
Have PA and WA also adopted the AB1735 standard? How? Via legislation or regulation at the PADA? If so, then it looks like raw milk will soon be banned in those states. That's especially shocking (though not really, based on Dennis Wolf's labeling efforts chronicled by Shirah at Unbossed) because PA had heretofore been benevolent towards raw milk, which, I suppose, is the reason Monsanto has probably put much effort into coopting the PADA.
David: if this type of comment is inappropriate (not on topic for this blog entry) just say so.
P.S.: One of the methods used by our opponents is the echo chamber: They post something negative on the internet, then link back to it, and to subsequent posts elsewhere, all based on the original ersatz post, creating a Google bomb of 'hits' for their propaganda.
I had a lengthy posting about the Stump situation last September:
http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2007/9/18/the-strange-case-of-salmonella-at-americas-second-largest-ra.html
As for the other states adopting the AB 1735 standard, there seems confusion. From what I understand, some other states that have adopted it are taking their measurements from the bulk tank, where it's easy to meet the standard, rather than after bottling, where it's much tougher (because the coliform multiply during the additional agitation). I'm also not sure whether all states that supposedly have adopted it are actually enforcing it.
The real significance of the CDFA person's comment is that it represents further evidence that CDFA is moving forward on enforcement, despite what CA legislators/agriculture commissioner may have said beforehand to Mark McAfee.
Also, I'm very open to different kinds of postings--we certainly see all kinds. That being said, I'm not really all that interested in being part of Google/Internet propaganda/linking battles/campaigns. I'd prefer to try to focus on real issues affecting real people.
Seems to me this is going to get uglier before resolution occurs....the cdfa is surely asking for it.
"The International Food Safety Network (iFSN) at Kansas State University provides research, commentary, policy evaluation and public information on food safety issues from farm-to-fork. iFSN is a national repository of food safety related information, providing an extensive number of services including consumer and student outreach, information research, on-line resources, collaborative projects, evaluation and analysis, and a capacity to address current and emerging food safety concerns. iFSN presents a unique opportunity to bring together all those associated with agriculture and food, to enhance the safety of the food supply."
Apparently, Barf Blog is a project of Dr. Doug Powell, scientific director of IFSN and associate professor at Kansas State University, and five grad students, who will have already eaten some irradiated pudding made with HFCS and pasteurized milk.
The thing is, no one drinks raw milk by accident, do they? No, they search it out on purpose and, unlike Walmart shoppers, take the time to learn about the health benefits and the situation that the cows are raised in. I've been drinking raw milk from grass fed cows, cows that I know, for nearly 8 years. My health is splendid, due in large part to drinking the raw milk. I think I should have the right to drink raw milk as I choose. There is less risk drinking raw milk than there is in eating conventionally grown beef these days.
If the Nanny state turned their efforts to cleaning up the mainstream food supply rather than pick on raw milk drinkers the food supply would be safer."
If I remember correctly, I believe that you need to register with his website before you are able to post. I encountered similar problems trying to post a comment this past summer, but was finally able to submit one after jumping through a few hoops. Doug Powell does answer comments pretty quickly, but don't expect him to apologize and don't be surprised by a rude or flippant response! :-)
Here is an enlightening list of the International Food Safetly Network's underwriters, according to their website:
"The International Food Safety Network is funded by a mix of public, private and foundation sources. All activities and information provided are independent and guided by evidence-based principles.
Funders:
Marler Clark
Monsanto Canada
CropLife Canada
National Restaurant Association
Dairy Farmers of Canada
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
National Pork Board
Canadian Animal Health Institute
Syngenta Crop Protection Canada
Ontario Farm Animal Council
Casco Inc.
Sholl Group / Green Giant Fresh
Ontario Agri-Food Technologies
American Air Liquide
Feedlot Health Management Services
University of Florida Pesticide Office
Canadian Institute of Public Health Inspectors (Ontario Branch) Inc.
Canadian Cattlemen's Association
National Turkey Federation
International Association for Food Protection
American Dairy Queen Corporation
New Science Management
University of Oklahoma
Oregon State University, Deptartment of Forest Sciences
City of Vernon, CA
Nutrition Action Healthletter, Center for Science in the Public Interest"
And yet another interesting tid-bit:
"In Feb. 2007, my previous institution, the University of Guelph, in Canada, decided -- unilaterally -- not to continue a partnership with Kansas State, and eliminated access to my staff and funds that I had established in Guelph (about $750,000). They even tried to shut down the web site, but I'd already moved it. Over the course of 2007, I have replaced five full-time research assistants and several part-timers paid out of Guelph with 12 part-time undergraduates at K-State and elsewhere, and one graduate student. You've heard from some of them in the past week; you'll hear from the rest in future weeks. The quality and diversity of the students I have been able to attract has been invigorating to the entire iFSN operation. Let the hacks and posers fight over what is left; I'm moving forward."
I didn't see a place to join.
Here's what I just got from his office:
Re:Food & Ag issues/concerns
Thank you for writing and sharing your thoughts with Governor Schwarzenegger on the passage of Assembly Bill 1735. The Governor truly appreciates your input on this bill.
Since coming into office, the Governor has made it his top priority protect the health and wellness of all Californians, whether it's cleaning up poor air quality or providing for effective healthcare.
Raw milk has been known to be a source of foodborne illness for decades. For example, in September 2006, the California Department of Public Health linked six cases of infection with the deadly E. coli O157:H7 to the consumption of raw milk. The median age of the victims was 8 years old. In recent years, illness outbreaks have been attributed to raw milk consumption in several states. In fact, raw milk sold for direct human consumption is illegal in all or part of 42 states.
The new standard passed by the Legislature in AB 1735 sets a maximum amount of coliform bacteria at no more than 10 bacteria per mL in milk sold raw to the consumer. This level is consistent with both national and international public health and food safety requirements for pasteurized dairy products.
The standard does not ban raw milk, but serves as an indicator of cleanliness and sanitation on facilities that produce and distribute the product to California consumers. Strict sanitation is especially important when pasteurization is not utilized to ensure harmful bacteria are not present in milk. Milk sold raw to consumers has been held to the same total bacteria count standard as pasteurized milk for more than sixty years. The addition of a coliform standard fills the gap in public health protection and ensures that such products are as safe as possible for all Californians.
Again, thank you for sharing your comments with Governor Schwarzenegger. By working together, we can ensure a healthy and prosperous future for all Californians.
Sincerely,
David Richey
Office of Constituent Affairs
-----
According to the Weston A. Price Foundation - 12-31-2007 CALIFORNIA RAW MILK UPDATE:
. . . the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed suit on behalf of Claravale Farm, Inc. and Organic Pastures Dairy Company, LLC against the State of California and its Department of Food and Agriculture.
The suit challenges the constitutionality of AB 1735, characterized as a "sneak attack" on raw milk.
The complaint claims the statute violates due process, equal protection and constitutes a regulatory takings (a regulation is so burdensome that all economic use of one's land has been taken away).
The complaint seeks a permanent injunction that prohibits the enforcement of AB 1735
until it is either rescinded or ruled unconstitutional.
The Legal Defense Fund did not couple its complaint with a motion for preliminary injunction
or temporary restraining order because its complaint was filed before the statute went into effect.
Because AB 1735 will not be effective until January 1, 2008, seeking relief in the form of a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction would be dismissed
as not ripe for review.
Contrary to erroneous claims made by a misleading email, the Fund is prepared to seek preliminary injunctive relief if the State chooses to enforce the law against either Claravale Farm or Organic Pastures.
If the State decides not to enforce the law, and allows the legislative process to take its course, these farmers are protected and can go about their business as usual.
Consequently, the Fund's reasoned, methodic approach in this matter has prevented waste
of time, money and judicial resources.
If necessary, however, the Fund is ready and armed to file for a preliminary injunction.
We will keep you posted on updates to the California raw milk situation as they become available.
------------------------------------
I hope people seriously consider joining or donating the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund,
as Ron Garthwaite of Claravale Farm and Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Company
have requested.
for more info, see http://www.westonaprice.org and http://www.ftcldf.org
-------------------------------------
I didn't see a place to join."
I'm sorry Henwhisperer, I just don't remember what I had to do to get my comments posted on BarfBlog. You might try entering your name and email address in the form, and try selecting the "Remember personal info?" option. I know there was something that I had to do to allow me to leave comments, I just can't recall what it was.
You could also try writing Doug Powell directly and ask him how to leave a comment without indicating your persuation. I bet he'll answer you promptly with instructions!
Even though the State's spokesperson Van Rien has stated that
the State is preparing to enforce the new law January 1, 2008,
I think that that may be desperate posturing and empty scare threats -
the state has a very weak case and CA. is in a severe budget crisis.
Also the state has already had an embarrassing defeat in their previous bout with Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy.
I think the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund has filed a strong suit on all 3 counts and
I think CA will quickly back down and/ or be soundly defeated again.
-----------------------
Seems to me he is missing 20 states.....or has the USA expanded while I was on Christmas vacation? That doesn't even include cow share-legal states.
They need people who can do their research.
Problem is, they KNOW the truth, they're just hoping that we don't.
Listeria monocytogenes, if it truly escapes pasteurization, is not the only problem that does so. Johnes, which has been linked to Crohns in humans, also survives pasteurization. In fact, trying to kill off Johnes with ever-higher pastueurization temperatures may be one of the unwritten agenda items for the industrial-milk folks. It would seem that there's nothing perfectly safe out there, but given my choice (which is what this whole topic is really about, IMHO), I'll stick with raw milk produced by farmers I know, from healthy animals raised on pasture, using proper farming procedures and modern testing and refrigeration. You control for Johnes by culling sick animals from the herd and testing. All things considered, the risks are lower, and the rewards in superior nutrition are higher, with fresh unprocessed (raw) milk.
Don: Henwhisperer was trying to post a comment on the Food Poisoning Blog, not BarfBlog. I wonder if Dr. Doug's undergraduates' grades are dependent on putting out for industrial ag?
Rose Red: Thanks for pointing out the intricacies of the injunctions in the two suits. I hope you are right, and the state backs down.
It would be very interesting if true.
Thanks