The Complete Patient

I'll drink a cold glass of raw milk to that!!!

Is the cat playing with the mouse? It seems so. For some reason, I have very little trust in the "powers that be".

Thank you so much for your coverage of this important hearing. It sounds like the 10-per-ml standard is going away, but could be replaced with a 50-per-ml one.

A word of caution -- from what I have heard the producers say, there is no actual reason to have a coliform standard below several thousand applied to raw milk. Whether it's 10 or 50, numbers in the two digits are just meaningless. So if we end up with a standard of 50, that leaves the impression that coliform testing at this level is valid, and then two years down the road, or five, another effort can be made to "tighten" the "standard" when folks are not looking.

We just need to keep in mind that the ONLY reason a coliform standard was introduced for raw milk was to discriminate against it and create a de facto ban. To settle for 50 (bulk) because the producers can probably meet it misses the point -- which is that 50 coliforms per ml do no harm whatsoever. Same for 100. To accept this standard would perpetuate a lie that would come back to bite us later. And the lie is just as big in a 50-coliform standard as in a 10-coliform one.

This is what some people very involved in this struggle have been saying, and I thought I should pass it on. We do need to keep an eye on the political -- and regulatory -- theater here. If the 50 standard would just be to allow CDFA to save face, well, maybe they shouldn't be able to save face, given what they did.

Producers, please correct me if I'm wrong -- I think I remember Ron saying coliforms needed to be in the tens of thousands to be a problem, and then it's only a quality problem, not safety. But I am not an expert! Please weigh in. Thanks all.

I was there today. I wanted to clarify that while the chamber and upstairs gallery were full to capacity and I was blessed to be seated in the chamber -- my understanding was that the room was only large enough for 250 capacity. There simply is no way we had 1,000 in attendance. I walked the halls, and there weren't 250 people waiting there during the hearing -- I would be surprised if there were even 50. While I was personally impressed with the attendance, these numbers seen largely exaggerated.

This is my report --

Dear All,

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/todevnt/committee_codes/HZZZCX01.html

I am just returning from what I experienced as a most memorable and inspirational day in Sacramento, joined by others from our local San Francisco chapter and from all over California. It absolutely restored my faith in due process.

I thought the way the events unfolded was absolutely riveting and I was at the edge of my seat!

For some background to today's events -- read today's San Francisco Chronicle article:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/16/BAEBUFL9G.DTL

In short, Nicole Parra, the Chair of the Agricultural Committee proved to be our champion claiming that she would not agree (quite passionately in my mind) to leaving the law as is -- which would require 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter of milk. In fact, during final negotiations she said that would have to happen "over my dead body". As a legislator, she took full responsibility for the fact that the process that the law AB 1735 was enacted was unjust and undemocratic ... that she intended to make a wrong right by her proposal AB 1604, which she authored. AB 1604 was intended to reverse AB 1735.

While the law AB 1735 was not reversed -- a negotiation took place before our eyes whereby the committee unanimously agreed that the law be suspended until July 1, 2008 at which time the two raw milk dairies will be required to have a 50 coliform bacteria per millimeter of milk at the tank -- which Organic Pastures was amenable to. Ron Garthwaite testified that any restriction of coliform was unnessary being that it is not unsafe and need not be regulated but, Claravale agreed to the amended terms nonetheless. My understanding is that 50 coliform is something both dairies could maintain at the tank.

Besides Nicole's impassioned stance, there were others on the committee who were clearly distressed by the fact that the law was passed without an opportunity to hear any objections and spoke with emotion about the travesty of that. One committee member told us about her childhood memories of drinking raw milk -- even recounting the names of the dairy cows on her relative's farms.

The proponents of AB 1604 who testified after Nicole Parra included Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures, Ron and Collette Garthwaite of Claravale and who we think was the owner or founder of Whole Foods who has been drinking raw milk for 30 years (and let us all know he was still here) and whose grocery is selling raw milk throughout the state of California. He let us know that Whole Foods was the largest commercial distributor of raw milk in the state. Does anyone who attended know his exact title and name? I was very impressed with the testimony of all.

No one from the California Department of Food and Agriculture was present to testify. I believe they will be asked to account for themselves at some point though. There was opposition -- I didn't take their names -- whose arguments about the safety of raw milk we are well aware of but, who didn't seem to convince the members of the Agricultural Committee.

This will now leave the committee, go to the assembly and then to the governor.

The crowd of raw milk supporters was overflowing ... every single seat taken in the chambers and the gallery -- with folks lined up in the hallways outside. It definitely had an impact as the legislators acknowledged us as an overflowing audience on several occasions before allowing us to "testify" directly. Despite folks' desire to share more, we were repeatedly limited to stating our name, where we came from and simply stating that we were in support of raw milk and/or AB 1604. Folks even came as far as Los Angeles by plane -- others driving for hours.

I was deeply, deeply moved! I introduced myself to Nicole, as many of us did at the conclusion of the hearing, and thanked her for her courage on behalf of our whole community. The members were all made well aware that we represented many, many more.

This is by no means over as AB 1604 now needs to go to the assembly and the governor -- yet, it seemed like the consensus was that it was clearly a victory and a critical foundation for the next step.

The gentleman from Whole Foods: Mr. Walter Robb, and I believe he is the co-president and co-coo since about 2004. he has been with Whole Foods for appx. 18 years. We thank him for his testimony. Thanks to Ms. Parra as well.

"As a legislator, she took full responsibility for the fact that the process that the law AB 1735 was enacted was unjust and undemocratic ..."

The people who pushed and passed AB 1735 under the cloak of darkness, in a process that was 'unjust and undemocratic', need to be ousted from their offices. Period. If the people of the state of California allow these thieves and villians to remain in their offices, it sends the message that this sort of behavior is acceptable in a 'democracy' - and it WILL happen again.

Please, now that you've got the momentum, call for these people's resignations.

Can I ask what is - or was, before this whole thing started - the coliform standard in California? (Before ab 1735) And was it in the tank? And what is the standard for pasteurized milk, and is it ever routinely tested in California? If anyone knows the answers to those questions I would appreciate it. Thanks, sounds like the raw milk lovers put on an awesome show of support.

This is encouraging news; let's hope that it pans out in 6 months. The public support and vigilence are of central importance in these matters. Hopefully, we will continue to lurch forward as the various states' (and federal, thank you very much) regulators and legislators understand these issues, and more important, understand that repression of free choice and the use of sneaky tactics won't work. I think it was significant that the pasteurized industry basically stood aside with no comment yesterday, so it's also important that raw milk advocates do not try to prove our case by bashing big ag. All we want is the ability to choose what we eat. If that choice is ensured, then change will come more naturally as people make their individual decisions about how to nourish their families. Congratulations, and thank you to everyone who spent their day in Sacramento.

I don't know the technical accuracy, but the theme of AuLait's post is worth noting for his instinct is correct. "Compromising" to a more lenient yet still meaningless standard is an old-fashioned tactic to leave the door open for regulation in the future. Let us thank God for the progress made thus far, but remain vigilant and prayerful without ceasing.

I became aware yesterday through a rawmilk listserve I am on that Martha Stewart talked about her own personal use of raw milk on her show and even aired a segment about a small family-owned dairy somehwere in the NE where they sell raw milk to their "neighbors" (Smith Family Dairy?) She had the raw milk in a pitcher on the counter in her cooking television studio. I suspect she will now probably be sued by the big dairy companies much like Oprah was by the cattle associations when she talked about the potential of unsafe meat.

meg--This is a link to a podcast of a radio show featuring Ron Garthwaite, one of the owners of Claravale Dairy. Ron was a microbiologist before he was a farmer.
It's been a while since I listened to it, so I am not sure if your specific questions are answered but he does talk about the testing of raw milk for pathogens that has been standard for years.

http://www.metrofarm.com/mf_Food_Chain_Radio.php

Scroll down to Show #564 A Real Raw Deal

Jean, as it so happens I'm going to be on Food Chain Radio on Saturday with Doreen Hannes. The topic is NAIS. Hope you all will tune in. It's at Noon EST.

henwhisper, can you give us a link? I'd love to listen to it, but don't know what it is, exactly, or where. Thanks,

Jean, the link is in your post, silly. But here it is again.

http://www.metrofarm.com/index.php
http://www.metrofarm.com/mf_Food_Chain_Radio.php

I am Jean with a capital J who posted the Food Chain link and she is jean with a small j who asked the question. I can understand your confusion.

oops. It's these durned bifocals. Sorry Big J Jean.

Some data for AB 1735 and Emergency AB 1604 RAW MILK legislation in CA.

Prior to January 1st 2008, grade A raw milk had to meet two of the requirements of pasteurized milk in order to be sold as raw for human consumption. Grade A raw milk also has additional requirements not required of pasteurized milk. It must be from a dairy herd that is tested annually to be 100% TB Free. Other dairies do not have this testing.

Specifically :

1. Grade A raw milk is tested for human pathogens which can not be detected including: Salmonella, Listeria M, Campylobacter, Ecoli 0157H7.

2. Grade A raw milk had to contain fewer than 15,000 total bacteria per ml which is the same as what is allowed for pasteurized milk after pasteurization.

After January 1st AB 1735 would have added the “less than 10 coliform per ml” requirement. Never has there been this requirement for grade A raw milk for human consumption. This level of coliforms can not be achieved on a reliable basis ( especially when tested in the finished product ) AB 1735 would in effect result in closure of raw milk dairies over time ( less than 100 days ).

AB 1604 overturns portions of AB 1735 and delays any testing of coliforms until July 2008 when coliform levels must be less than 50 in the bulk tank. This level is achievable on a reliable basis.

Coliforms are essential to the safety of raw milk. Their presence strongly inhibits the growth of pathogens. So this level of coliforms is really unsupported and ridiculous when critically evaluated. More coliforms is better for raw milk safety. It is a matter of balance between good and bad bacteria. Coliforms are good and play a positive role in food safety. Most politicians and their handlers do not understand this science.

AB 1604 passed with unanimous consent yesterday in the most amazing showing of democracy ever seen in recent times in CA. There was a public admission of fault and a passionate demand to correct the error. There was also a demand by Assemblyman Tom Berryhill for the heads of those that mislead the legislature in the silent sneak attack to kill raw milk.

There was outrage.

Even Big Dairy GOT MILK people agreed that AB 1735 was an egregious breach of public trust and due process.

There was about 500-600 people present. 500 I love raw milk pins were given away and placed on supporters. There were many who wanted some but we had run out. There are about 400 seats in the upper and lower decks of room 4202. There were many people standing out side in the crowded hall and could not get in.

Makes me very proud to be a Californian. Not just for raw milk but for the health of our democracy. I not only love raw milk…. I love Nicole Parra and what she did for us yesterday!! She took accountability and corrected mistake with all her heart.

She is also lactose intolerant, and from what we have heard she drank some OPDC raw milk last night and everything went well. Perhaps we can earn a new consumer.

What a great day!! Where California goes the world will surely follow.

Keep it raw and keep it green.

AuLait nailed this. We are fussing and fizzing about a "standard" that is not relevant to milk quality. No, I take that back, it's a standard that REDUCES milk quality, by limiting the number of allowable beneficial coliforms. (Mark of course knows this. He says, "More coliforms is better for raw milk safety." This certainly does NOT mean that the very low count of 50, is better than 10.)

Now it's understandable that Mark McAfee would fight for, and be happy about achieving, a 50 coliform/ml standard. After all, it allows his business to run. Well, fine for Mark (and yes, I recognize fine also for his many, many customers). But this is much, much bigger than Mark's business. By agreeing to this silly standard, we encourage state bureaucrats to once again damage our food supply. How many times we have lamented rules and regulations that put corporate interests above food quality! Now we encourage it, because the benefits are accrued by a corporation that supplies a product we want.

While I appreciate Mark's position, warping truth in a way that benefits corporate interests, even a valuable corporation, is very unwise--we are trading short-run success for long-run disaster. AuLait is right, or at least mostly right... We needn't wait to be bitten in the future by regulators tightening this standard. It is far too tight already, and bites plenty hard enough as is.

This fight was presumably for Truth, Justice, and the American Way. What we've achieved is just one out of three. Not so wonderful a result to justify all the self-congratulation.

I agree with AuLait and Mr. Milano. I worry that Mark is letting the faeries fox him while the devil does him. Accepting a false benchmark simply for expediency's sake is a bad move. It would have been more rational to develop a new test for only the pathogenic organisms if, indeed, any additional testing is truly deemed necessary.

Now that this false standard has been accepted, attempts to arbitrarily (and covertly) tighten it will always be a threat - depend on it.

I think Mark had 2 options, agree to some reasonable coliform level, or prepare to shut down. I for one am not willing to be w/o my raw milk as soon as next week. The Committee members have no idea what this coliform stuff is all about. They would not have agreed to the bill at all if there had not been some agreeable number. There had to be a compromise for it to pass. They delayed implementing for 6 months so that they have time to study the information and can make an informed decision later on. They can amend this as it goes through the process.