In This Raw Milk Prizefight, the AB 1604 "Victory" May Be Just the First Round
Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 08:51AM Here are the facts in the California raw milk situation:
--Prior to January 1, 2008, consumers could buy all the raw milk they wanted, so long as the milk passed two categories of long-established tests for total bacteria and pathogens.
--As of January 1, 2008, a third category test requirement was arbitrarily added via AB 1735--that raw milk have a coliform count of less than 10 per milliliter. This would likely have significantly reduced the amount of raw milk allowed for sale.
--So great was the opposition that state politicians last week considered new legislation, AB 1604, which would rescind the 10-coliform-per-milliliter standard.
--At last week’s hearing, several members of the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee made strong speeches against AB 1735 and the way it was enacted. Raw milk advocates cheered.
--When the smoke of the speeches cleared, AB 1604 was changed, to rescind the 10-coliform-per-milliliter standard for only six months. Thereafter? The issue will be re-visited. Maybe a new standard of 50 coliforms per milliliter. Maybe another standard.
That’s a victory?
Supposing the state arbitrarily took away my right to vote. I then made a big stink, and the state said, okay, we’ll give you back your right to vote…but only for six months. After that, we’ll think about it further, and probably impose some limitations. Perhaps you can only vote in half the elections. We’ll see if you’ve been a good boy.
I am so relieved to be getting the state to show any flexibility I say, “Oh, thank you so much, kind state, you are truly benevolent.”
Nicole Parra may indeed be a decent person, capable of inspiring speeches. But she also pulled a classic political smooth move. She hung the California Department of Food and Agriculture out to dry, but when all the speeches and testimony were completed, the CDFA still had what it really was after: a new standard to make it tougher for raw milk producers to fill demand. I
I wouldn’t be surprised if she told the CDFA folks, “Hey, guys, there’s enough of an outcry here that I’m going to have to hang you out to dry. But don’t take it personally. We won’t get rid of the coliform standard. In six months, the raw milk people probably won’t be paying nearly as much attention, and, well…”
Okay, so maybe 50-coliforms-per-milliliter is achievable, but there’s no assurance that is the number, or if it is the number, that it remains the number. The precedent of a new type of standard has been established, and the CDFA survived extreme pressure to get rid of it.
This is what Aajonus Vonderplanitz has been warning us about for some weeks now, and what AuLait and Dave Milano are re-reminding us about.
The really good news in all this is that the raw milk advocates got organized, and lots of people let the governor and legislators know about their upset. The hearing, so vividly described by Sandrine Hahn, showed the depth of commitment by many people to right a flagrant wrong.
The real question going forward is whether individuals who value their nutritional freedom in California can continue to keep the pressure on, and get the coliform standard eliminated. I think that's what this legislative maneuvering over AB 1604 is really about. The powers that be are betting that in six months, the hue and cry will have died down, and they can go back to tightening the screws on raw milk drinkers.
Reader Comments (20)
This is a WAR with the CDC, state ag and health agencies, the FDA, the USDA, and others. One does NOT compromise in a war...or do you think we should have compromised with Hitler and Japan during WWII?
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Now many of the things that they have said or implied have been squishy and spinnable, the kinds of things that later on the CDFA has room to say - oh, this is what we meant by that, etc, you are misnterpreting.
But if the CDFA told the legislature that interstate shipment requirements were one of the reasons for the change, and if that can be proved, this is flat out and out a bald-faced lie. As everyone knows who works for the CDFA, the FDA, or any state department of Agriculture, interstate shipment of raw milk is illegal. It is explicitly banned by the PMO. This is not something anyone can plead ignorance on.
Surely, even in this corrupt and cynical day and age, there must be some penalty for a state agency that deliberately lies to the legislature for the express purpose of changing the law. Or am I just naive?
In MA with the Whittier Farm Listeria spp. deaths, if I remember correctly, it took the MA DPH 6 mos to connect 3 deaths and 1 miscarriage to a Listeria contamination, even though it was not caused by raw milk.
6 months. Hmmmmm...
Thanks
http://cheeseslave.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/drinking-pasteurized-milk-is-dangerous/
The first link shows what lengths people will go to in order to obtain something they want. The second link has a long list of outbreaks from pasteurized dairy. I don't recall the exact amount the CDC or the Ag depts tout in regards to raw milk outbreaks, something like 19? With I think it was less than 500-600 illnesses.. Big difference to me, shows that raw was safer.
We need to keep in mind that nothing has "passed" anything yet -- the Ag committee wrote up a draft bill (1604), had a hearing, made some changes to the draft on the basis of issues raised at the hearing, and then voted as a committee on the new version. That version was approved by all members, which means it can now go to the Assembly and be voted on without further debate. When it gets to the Senate, which has had no debate of its own on this, more hearings may or may not be held. More changes to the bill can be made at that time if there are more hearings. Then the Senate will vote on that bill, and then the Governor will have to sign or veto the bill that gets to him. No one seems sure what he will do.
In other words, this is very, very far from over. And until some version of the bill becomes law -- is signed by the Governor -- nothing is certain.
In addition, the clause that says, "we'll research what the standard should be but it will probably be 50" should be a giant red flag for all of us that dirty dealing behind the scenes will continue. What's the point of doing the "research" if you're already pretty sure what your answer will be? And even though the producers can probably meet that standard (because it's in the bulk tank instead of the final product), the standard itself still looks like nonsense! And it's dangerous nonsense.
Here's why I think so: On 1/17/08, Mark McAfee posted a comment on this blog, which was great of him. A commenter had asked what the coliform standard had been PRIOR to AB1735, and Mark's answer was solid gold, for me:
"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."
Got that? 15,000! In the final product, not the bulk tank. ("Total bacteria" and "coliform count" are the same thing here.) This was the standard for years. And AB1735 took it down to 10, in the final product -- but only for raw! Pasteurized milk could (and can) still have 15,000! And pasteurization, of course, is done to kill bacteria, so if anything, pasteurized should have a whole lot less than raw. Right? To apply a tougher standard to raw is backwards.
The new AB1735 limit was 1/1500 of the limit we had before. (Yes, one fifteen-hundredth.) And 1/1500 of the limit that continued to apply to pasteurized.
Ron Garthwaite of Claravale said, in an early letter, that coliform counts have to be "orders of magnitude" higher than the AB1735 standard to become an issue at all -- and at that point, they are an esthetic issue (taste, odor), NOT a health or safety issue. I think Ron was right! The old limit was three orders of magnitude (three powers of 10) higher than the new one, and there seems to have been nothing wrong with it.
The only way this makes sense is if 50 in the bulk tank translates to 15,000 in the final product. It seems unlikely. Can anyone with technical knowledge check in on this point? I know you get more coliforms as the milk moves through a bottling system, contacting the surfaces and picking up whatever's there. But could it go from 50 per ml to 15,000 per ml doing that? Or even near 15,000? If not, then my point is valid. Otherwise, it's not, and we are really okay with this 50 standard for the bulk tank.
I wish I knew why no one in the hearing brought this up -- or if they did, what happened. Some committee members were said to be uncomfortable taking away the AB1735 limit and leaving raw milk without any coliform standard. Did no one in the room know that prior to AB1735, the pasteurized standard covered raw too? So no one could have suggested that we simply go back to the (15,000) standard we had before? I had always heard that there had been no coliform standard for raw before 1735, but now I know that meant no special standard, just for raw. It was covered by a standard alright, and that's what we should have been fighting to reinstate. Now I know. But didn't others know before?
We have to remember that falsely implying that these low (2-digit) coliform counts are a serious problem is the mainstay of the CDFA strategy to ban raw milk. As long as this 50 standard is treated as a reasonable possibility, these false insinuations will remain and will continue to be used against us. I think we have to take the next six months and fight for the original standard of 15,000 (final) to be restored -- if it is not, in fact, too late. On paper, we have six months to make the case for a real standard, equal to the one for pasteurized. But will they really be listening? And if there are no more hearings, when and how do we have input?
Sorry this is so long, but wanted to be clear. Bless everyone who works on this and everyone who showed up at the hearing -- I'm not criticizing anyone, I'm just very concerned and think we need to be clear about where we are. Also the usual disclaimer -- producers or specialists, if I have misunderstood anything, please correct me. I do not claim to have an expert background in this at all. I would actually like to be wrong about this one!
Where would the definitions of the state be found to clarify this?
I found some definitions at a Virginia state extension site which may help explain what the different kinds of counts represent.
I just do think it is very important to be accurate, because if you come out in favor of raw milk and then make statements showing that you don't know what the numbers represent, I think it damages your cause.
Anyway, here is the Virginia site.
http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/dairy/404-405/404-405.html#spc
If you have the determination to plow through something weightier, here is a University of Wisconsin site that explains the terms in more detail.
http://www.uwex.edu/milkquality/PDF/milk%20quality%20tests01.pdf
The bill text, supposedly with all the amendments included, is here:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1604_bill_20080114_amended_asm_v96.html
The bill looks good, it just deletes the "10 coliform" standard wherever it had been introduced, and that means that the standard would revert to what had been in place before, which was reasonable.
The confusing thing now is that hearing attendees have reported that there were agreements about a six-month moratorium, for testing for a new standard, and some notion that the new standard would maybe be 50, and none of that language is in the actual bill, as you can see if you take a look.
So now I have a new thing to be confused about -- were the "six months" and "50 count" items just verbal agreements made in the hearing room? Are they binding? Can anyone who was present clear that up?
I really appreciate everyone's input and just want us all to be clear on what exactly happened on Wednesday and where we stand now. I would like to be clearer on this myself. Thanks to everyone --
Plate count (a.k.a. plate loop, or standard plate) is typical. As an example: Allow milk to clabber, and the SPC will be astronomical. In that case, high SPC is not only safe, but desirable (and of course, very natural).
SPC is largely (though not entirely, as others have pointed out above) about milk sweetness, not safety. When we see SPC used out of its context as an indicator of safety (more often as a presumed indicator of danger) we might become suspicious that somebody (read: regulator) is trying to manipulate somebody (read: consumer).
"(3) An FFMF shall have the milk produced on that farm tested once per week in a state-approved laboratory for the following, and the results must be below these limits:
(A) Total bacterial (aerobic) count: 15,000 cfu/ml (cows); 20,000 cfu/ml (goats);
(B) Total coliform count: 10 cfu/ml (cows and goats);
(C) Somatic cell count: 400,000/ml (cows); 750,000/ml (goats)."
Can someone please decipher this with respect to the discussion just above about plate counts, etc? Also, part C to my amateur brain looks a lot like the AB1735 restriction. What's 'cfu/ml'?
Thanks.
The law is here:
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/legdoc.cfm?URL=/docs/2008/bills/intro/H-616.HTM
Second, this proposal looks a lot like a draft which I've seen before, I think at the WAPF conference in Nov., which was prepared by a Vermont raw milk advocate. If this is the same person, she was working very hard to make something that would straddle between totally regulated and totally unregulated, while still setting up goals for reasonable and responsible production and sale of raw milk. In reading it quickly, it seems that much of this draft depends on committees, etc. which are representative of raw milk producers. David, there's a story here about the source of this proposal, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out. A number of states have the 10cfu (colony forming units)/ml coliform standard which as I understand it, is either enforced at the bulk tank (where it arguably is achievable, although on the unnecessarily strict side) rather than the final container, or not enforced at all (especially, if the law says final container) since it's basically not achievable at the final container.
So, before jumping on this proposal it would be good to know more about its background, and if the 10 cfu is possibly applicable to the final container, it would be good to loosen it up (or remove it).
It sounds from Steve's comment above like it might be fine. Is that right?
Also, I have figured out why the six-month-moratorium and eventually-50-coliform stuff is not in the text of the bill online (which I linked to in my earlier comment). That version is from the committee's meeting on Monday 1/14, not from the hearing on Wednesday 1/16. The history clearly says the committee amended the bill during the hearing, but that amended text isn't up yet. Don't know when it will be. Meanwhile, I'm seeking through other channels to get a hold of the new text, if possible. I'm guessing the missing language will be in the version from the 16th, but want to see it.
Here's the link to the bill search, if anyone wants to check it later for updates -- just choose "assembly" and enter "1604" --
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1601-1650/ab_1604_bill_20080114_amended_asm_v96.html
Everyone here rocks and I think we should keep it moooooving!
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
There, now my instructions apply. Whew!