If You’re Promoting Agriculture, Why Undermine Local Dairies That Could Improve the Economy?
Wednesday, February 6, 2008 at 07:40PM 
When you stand back a little, one of the truly amazing things about the decline in the number of dairies—really, the consolidation of the dairy industry—is the active opposition of the state agriculture officials to small dairies trying to achieve sustainability by producing raw milk--and potentially reversing the forces of economic stagnation.
It's amazing because state agriculture officials are charged with promoting their state’s agriculture products. Yes, from New York to California, they have turned the raw milk issue from one that could be economically exciting to one that is completely ideological and political. New York State’s Department of Agriculture and Markets states on its home page, “Our mission is to foster a competitive food and agriculture industry that benefits producers and consumers alike.”
California’s Department of Food and Agriculture is similar: It says it “strives to support this tradition of innovation and agricultural diversity by working with private industry, academia and public sector agencies.”
Raw milk is a hot product, as are the products that can be produced from it, like yogurt, kefir, butter, buttermilk, and heavy cream. The ultimate in "agricultural diversity." In his comment on my previous post, Steve Bemis captures well the irony of raw milk in today's agriculture system--that it is less costly to produce in terms of resources, and thus financially attractive to small farms.
Yet one of the big issues in states that allow limited sales of raw milk, like New York and Pennsylvania, concerns whether small dairies can produce the high-value follow-on products that can take farms beyond commodity production. Raw milk dairies want desperately to produce such products because customers are constantly requesting them.
If you’re in business, one of the most frustrating situations is to be unable to supply high-value products or services related to your main offerings, which are in big demand. Usually, it’s because you can’t obtain the items or provide them at a reasonable price. In the case of raw milk dairies, it’s because the state won’t let you sell them.
That problem is what underlies the entire Meadowsweet Farm case. Barb and Steve Smith turned their dairy into a limited liability company largely as a way to make followon raw milk products available to consumers (and as a way to get out from under the department’s increasingly tough, and arbitrary, approach to inspections).
New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets in its brief to dismiss the Smiths’ court suit sought to apply regulations that the followon products are “adulterated” and “misbranded,” “because they were made from raw milk in violation of the applicable standards of identity for such foods which require that those products be made from pasteurized milk.”
Gary Cox, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund lawyer representing the Smiths, argued that much of the terminology underlying regulation of raw milk is imprecise—for example, suggesting that the Smiths operate “a milk plant,” since milk plants are used in the regulations to describe places that use pasteurized milk.
I have written a lot about this issue as one involving basic rights. But I must say, it offends the business sensibilities as well--that in times of economic stress, our government officials are ready to sacrifice economic opportunity for the nation's oldest industry to the interests of ideology.
Reader Comments (25)
you've pointed out the hypocrisy in government. pray for a judge who can see the hypocrisy for what it is, and who is willing to side with us.
Just exactly who or what entity says that all dairy has to be pasturized? If the dairy products are pasturized, then they wouldn't be raw milk,cheese, yogurt, etc...(walking away shaking my head)
Instead, I’d bet my last jug of raw milk that if you had a little mole inside a state ag department, he could answer your question as to why all this war to destroy cow shares, thereby sacrificing the people’s health and hope for prosperity in these hard economic times.
“Because Dean Foods wants us to,” would be his answer.
Of course, the lobbying dollars of Monsatan and others may well add up to way more than that, which would explain a lot.
You have to remember why we have these regulations, often they were pushed into law in order to of eliminate competition. And the same is true of almost all licensing schemes that we have today. What we are seeing today is just a continuance of that history. Those state ag mission statements are for public consumption only and have no bearing on reality.
I talked to an ag extension agent who was telling me they were trying to get more "real" farms going. The only thing was in Tahiti, the islands are so small there are no jobs. But everybody's got a little chunk of land they grow sweet potatoes and breadfruit on, and they fish, and the only food they buy is imported stuff that doesn't grow in Tahiti anyway. In other words, most people are relatively self-sufficient.
So he tells me, "But it's very difficult to get commercial farms going here, because everybody grows so much that they don't need any extra food." So, you're telling me everybody's self-sufficient and you want to end that? Because... ? No reason was ever given; it was just assumed that more buying and selling was good. Nobody ever looked at the flipside of that argument, which is that taking care of yourself is bad.
I also don't think he realized that most people didn't have much money, so if they had to buy all their food then the government would just have to put them on food stamps.
To understand what happened (and continues to happen) in America, look at Poland. Until very recently, Poland had what we so desparately need--diversified, environment-friendly, locally structured, family farm food production. Then came Smithfield Farms and other corporate interests which, with government-bolstered power, immediately began transforming the place to fit the mold of big-ag monoculture. Bye-bye tradition, bye-bye economic stability, bye-bye health.
You might find it interesting to go here:
http://www.southernstudies.org/facingsouth/2006/10/facing-south-report-at-smithfield-work.asp
to read something of what Smithfield did in North Carolina. Scroll down to a (long) statement from Marek Kryda about the situation in Poland.
----------------
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_8207621?nclick_check=1
Families sue raw milk producer over E. coli outbreak
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 02/08/2008 09:30:27 AM PST
FRESNO, Calif.—The families of two children sickened by the E. coli bacteria are suing a Fresno dairy.
The lawsuits filed Thursday in Fresno County Superior Court accuse Organic Pastures Dairy Co. of shipping raw milk tainted with the bacteria to stores in September 2006. That's when at least five children fell ill after consuming the dairy's products.
Testing at Organic Pastures did not detect the strain of E. coli that sickened some of the children, but a government report last February said the dairy was likely responsible.
The lawsuits, filed by the families of 11-year-old Laura Herzog of Rancho Cucamonga and nine-year-old Chris Martin of Murrieta, allege Martin has incurred more than $450,000, and Herzog more than $250,000 in hospital bills.
The dairy's owner Mark McAfee was traveling and not immediately available for comment.
-- Speech to luncheon clubs, Galveston, Texas, December 8, 1949, when he was president of Columbia University.
I wonder why the plaintiffs aren't suing the various hospitals and hospital staff, since according to what was hashed over in this blog the children would have recovered and not suffered kidney failure had they not been given antibiotics in direct contradiction to an admitting physician's early instructions. The hospitals and their insurance companies certainly have deeper pockets that Mark McAfee, but of course they also can afford a much more vigorous legal defense. Perhaps Mark was targeted under the assumption that he would prefer a settlement and not risk a lengthy, drawn out court proceeding. If so, I have the feeling that they don't know him very well...
Maybe they are suing the doctors/hospital. That is probably not as newsworthy as raw milk making children sick rather than malpractice.
The children did indeed receive incompetent medical care.
It has been frequently mentioned on the blog that there is a fight going on for raw milk and this is just another chapter in this battle.
1. Lawyers, for the most part, are scum sucking bottome feeders.
2. The tort system neede to institute a "loser pays" policy.
Bob
1) Most people would agree with you on this, although usually excluding their own lawyer from the criticism :-).
2) Agreed, altho would you exclude class action cases against government officials (or other cases that you might feel are appropriate)?
Kathryn - agree also about the pain of injury to a child, and the urge to hold someone accountable (I've been there). There is considerable relief in letting go of this urge, particularly in the face of matters where fault/causation is doubtful either factually or legally. There is a lot of wisdom (both religious and in terms of basic mental health) in being able to forgive. Being a plaintiff is not an easy walk.
On your second point, I'll have to think about it.
BTW...I may disappear for a while next week. I've got jury duty and when I tell the judge that I believe in jury nullification, based on article 1, section 1 of the GA constitution, she, if she follows past history, is gonna throw me in jail for contempt.
Bob
Isn't there a statue of limitations (or some such wording)? Isn't it 2 yrs from the "date of discovery" to sue? With the evidence in the media and what the Great state of Ca has said, it is a suit without merit. Can you be found guilty on "speculation"? Isn't proof required? I do want to believe that most lawyers are not scum suckers. A good lawyer will tell you up front if s/he believes your case has merit and your probable chances of winning. If one of the kids has kaiser, then suing is out, you go to arbritration (sp), Dad just read that kaiser killed some kids and only had to pay out less than I think it was $400,000.00. I think kaiser pays for the judge. Also, if you sue and win, you usually have to re-emburse your healthcare insurance with your winnings and someone has to pay court costs and legal fees. I wonder if Mark can sue for harassment?
Additional motivation may be to financially cripple or bankrupt OPDC.
Who is the attorney for the plaintiffs? He may have sold the plaintiffs on this suit, having an ulterior motive in service to the industry he really serves.
.............
Dave: Thanks for the link to the article about Smithfield. Chilling. It goes far to provide insight into what is undoubtedly going on behind closed doors in the USDA, FDA, CDFA, et. al....and the Agriculture and Appropriations Committees......
Too bad the official media won't publish stories like this any more.