The Debate Over the CA and NY Cases Underscores the Realities of a Two-Front Legal War for Raw Milk
Friday, January 4, 2008 at 12:13AM I was reading Diane Reifschneider’s argument following my previous post, for a super-aggressive libel action, and saying to myself, “Yes!” “Right!” “Absolutely!”
A reaction not unlike what I experienced in speaking with veteran raw-milk battler Aajonus Vonderplanitz the previous day, when he advocated a new suit seeking an immediate injunction and focusing on injuries suffered by California consumers eventually deprived of raw milk under AB 1735.
So I asked Gary Cox, the lawyer for the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, who is leading the legal battle launched in California last month on behalf of the state’s two raw milk dairies, what about Diane’s suggestion?
His response was short and sweet: “Interesting stuff. But the fund is not interested in ‘libel’ suits. We're here to help farmers make their products directly available to the consumer.”
I think what he was really saying was this: We have to remain focused on a single defining goal. While Diane, and Aajonus, may have intriguing approaches, to try to carry them all out risks distracting us from the most urgent, and attainable, goal.
And while he didn’t talk about resources and costs, several individuals made the point very well, including Lacedo, who speaks from very personal experience: no opponent can muster more resources than the government. Sure, it’s our money, but the reality is that the government owns the printing presses, and so has essentially unlimited funds.
Let’s not forget, this legal war for nutritional freedom in the form of the right to consume raw milk, is already being fought on two distant fronts—in California and in New York. It’s being supported by donations, and by a few lawyers willing to work for far less than what they could command in the corporate market.
Here’s one small example of how involved just one legal action can become. In the New York situation, the state’s Department of Agriculture and Markets has scheduled a hearing for January 17 to prevent Meadowsweet Farm from distributing its raw milk products to consumer owners of its limited liability company. A court hearing on a request for a temporary injunction in the suit by the LLC and farm owners Barbara and Steve Smith is scheduled for five days later, January 22.
Gary Cox wants the January 17 hearing postponed until after the court date, but to do that he had to write a six-page brief to the NY Department of Agriculture and Markets, complete with citations of legal precedents, to argue that the court hearing should take precedence over the regulatory hearing. I’m not sure how long it took to write that brief, but I would guess anywhere from three to six hours, and that doesn’t count the research that needed to be done on the precedents and legal theory.
Keep in mind also, that was just the work involved to seek a delay in a regulatory hearing. It has nothing to do with actually preparing the arguments for both events. (He has to prepare for the regulatory hearing anyway, since he won’t hear until maybe a day or two beforehand whether his brief succeeded.)
In the corporate world, legal time sells for anywhere from $500 to $1,200 an hour, and it’s inflating in price almost as rapidly as gasoline. That’s why it’s a truism to say that the United States offers the best justice money can buy.
My point is that in any war, the fight on the ground is always more tedious, more demanding, and more costly than anyone anticipates in advance.
Plus, you have to deal with all kinds of armchair generals, myself prominent among them, telling you why and how you could be doing things more effectively.
Reader Comments (56)
Your posts reminds me of the so called "frivolous" malpractice suits. It costs lawyers money just to investigate a claim by an injured party. They pay their legal person and/or RN to review a potential case. That RN gathers what the person tells them and s/he may review a medical chart (if this is done, there is a charge from the facility to copy the pages). It can take many hours to do this. RNs charge over $75/hr to do this. If they use an MD it is much more and much much more if they have to hire a "professional" MD to testify. If the case appears viable, it is taken on a contingency bases. So the lawyer is footing the bill. There are very few frivolous malpractice suits. They are only frivolous to the insurance companies and the MDs who screw up.
I've sued the govt and the VA. It can be long and drawn out. Sometimes, when you hit bottom, the only way to go is up. It's all about what you are willing to fight for. Yes, you may lose the battle,yet,there is nothing to say you cannot come back at a later date.
Dictating what we can and cannot eat/drink is so very wrong. As someone posted, if you don't want raw milk, then don't buy it. The word "RAW" is quite large on the bottle.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17840865
That was a really good broadcast. What David Lynch is doing makes a lot of sense.
Thanks! My local station preempted this story for some local thing, so I did not know about it till now. I appreciate your sharing!
Bob
---------
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL LIES ABOUT RAW MILK
For immediate release. January 4, 2008
Raw milk proponents who have claimed that government officials often deceive the public about the safety of raw milk found clear evidence of this practice in a recent statement from the California Office of Constituent Affairs.
A letter signed by David Richey, Office of Constituent Affairs, sent to California consumers of raw milk, states that 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 letter refers to the September 2006 outbreak of virulent E. coli now definitively tied to spinach grown in California.
Although officials of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) accused Organic Pastures Dairy, California's main producer of raw milk, of selling tainted milk, thorough investigation of the milk, the cows and even the manure at Organic Pastures Dairy failed to find virulent E. coli or any other pathogen.
The state was forced to make a monetary settlement to compensate Organic Pastures Dairy for loss of business during the unnecessary two-week recall.
"The actions of California officials typify what we are seeing in many parts of the United States," says Sally Fallon, president of The Weston A. Price Foundation, a nutrition education foundation that promotes the consumption of raw milk. "Raw milk is often the whipping boy for illness caused by other foods. Health officials publicize a 'link' between raw milk and illness on little or no proof and ignore much more likely vectors of illness, such as salads or deli meats. They can find a 'link' between raw milk and illness by asking victims about raw milk consumption and not about other foods they have consumed."
Fallon notes that In September, 2003, the FDA, USDA and CDC jointly released a report comparing the risk of listeriosis carried by various foods. On a per-serving basis, this report estimated that deli meats are 10.8 times more dangerous than raw milk and that non-reheated hot dogs are 9.2 times more dangerous than raw milk. Since deli meats are so commonly consumed, on an absolute basis they carry 515 times as great a risk as raw milk.
Furthermore, two people recently died in Massachusetts from listeria in pasteurized milk. "Where are the government warnings to avoid deli meats, hot dogs and pasteurized milk?" asks Fallon. "Only raw milk is singled out as a menace."
The letter from the Governor's office also states that "raw milk sold for direct human consumption is illegal in all or part of 42 states."
"Once again, the state of California is lying to the public," say Fallon. "Raw milk may legally be sold in over 30 states and may be sold in stores in eight states. California citizens whose health depends on access to raw milk deserve fair and accurate statements from public servants, not lies and misinformation."
The new standard passed by the Legislature in AB 1735, without hearings or debate, sets a maximum amount of beneficial probiotic coliform bacteria at no more than 10 bacteria per mL in milk sold raw to the consumer. If enforced, AB 1735 could make raw milk unavailable because coliform bacteria-which are harmless-multiply rapidly when milk is machine bottled.
Just before AB 1735 took effect, January 1, 2007, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund filed a lawsuit in San Benito County. Part of that lawsuit requests an injunction which would legally protect raw milk producers against enforcement of AB 1735 standards. In addition, a new law will be introduced in January reversing AB 1735.
"AB 1735 unfairly targets raw milk and is not necessary for public safety," says Taaron Meikle, president of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. "The two raw milk dairies in California have a superlative safety record."
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) defends the sale of raw milk and other farm products directly to the public. In states where raw milk sales are illegal, FTCLDF helps farmers provide raw milk to consumers through cow-boarding and herd-sharing contractual agreements.
###
CONTACTS
Sally Fallon, President, The Weston A. Price Foundation
202-962-0333, safallon@aol.com, www.westonaprice.org
Taaron Meikle, President, The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
(703) 964-7421, TGMeikle@aol.com, www.farmtoconsumer.org
Pete Kennedy, Esq., Vice President, The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund
(941) 349-4984, glfcstmnrs@earthlink.net
Amanda
I know for SURE that one of the kids did not have spinach. (MY daughter)! I cant speak for the others. I highly doubt all six kids ate the EXACT same things.
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/01/articles/legal-cases/so-whats-the-beef-with-the-new-california-raw-milk-safety-rules/
Amanda
The Bill Marler post is interesting for its irreverence and sarcasm. It seems that posting about food poisoning is serious business when pasteurized milk or hamburger is the cause, but it's hilarious when raw milk may be linked (but not proven) by the state.
The implication that he could come to own the property where the dairies reside, presumably by launching a frivolous lawsuit in order to bankrupt them, telegraphs the intent of the entire vendetta against raw milk.
This pattern of belittling raw milk and raw milk drinkers is the same strategy used by the media to shun and impart certain political candidates with a 'yuck' factor.
about the MA Whittier Farms pasteurized milk contamination deaths. The information about the Whittier Farms incident comprises approximately 40% of the post. This was merely intended as the lead-in to tell people:
"So, before you go out and start buying raw milk because you are now worrying about mis-pasteurization, please take a hard look at the list of raw milk outbreaks put together by Barfblog and the below PowerPoint from the FDA"
Followed by a link to "Raw Milk-Associated health Risks" power point. Followed by a link to "Raw Milk Legal Status in Top 10 Milk Production States' and a blockquote therefrom. The data in the quote merely informs as to the status and amount of raw milk sold in 2003 in ten states. The Weston A. Price Foundation is the source.
The clear intent is to associate raw milk with the deaths caused by the Whittier Farms pasteurized milk.
It's also interesting that it was posted on the same day that the WAPF press release was posted. One says that the outbreak was definitively tied to spinach, the other lists evidence tying it to milk.
Amanda
Thanks for the link. It clearly shows that the E. coli outbreak had nothing to do with raw milk. An open mind and more tests may have shed some light on the true cause of this unfortunate occurrence, but now the trail is cold.
Lacedo is right about playing word games to associate raw milk with illness. We just need to continue to calmly re-state facts.Any spurious information, no matter how well-intentioned, just provides opponents with something to seize upon.
Don: Thank you too. I didn't mean to shoot the messenger.