Navigation
Search

Login
« Let’s Not Kid Ourselves About What the FDA-Led Grand Jury Probe Is Really About | Main | Off the Mat: Say Goodbye to AB 1735, At Least for Now, As OPDC and Claravale Win TRO »
Thursday
20Mar

Of Nighttime Agent Visits, Phone Tapes, and Secret Wires: Now OPDC Is Target of a Grand Jury Investigation into Raw Milk

bigstockphoto_Microphone__Recorder_In_Backg_325584.jpgMark McAfee had just a few hours to celebrate yesterday’s issuance of a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of AB 1735--what he called “a big win for California raw milk and producers”—before he learned about the next phase of the government’s campaign against Organic Pastures Dairy Co.

It seems the U.S. Justice Department, in cooperation with the Food and Drug Administration, is conducting a grand jury investigation into OPDC’s sales of raw milk and colostrum sold as pet food to consumers around the country, outside of California. Two of OPDC’s employees have in the last two weeks each received a subpoena to testify in early April before a U.S. District Court grand jury for the Eastern District of California.

The employees, who take phone orders and help administer the dairy’s office, didn’t know what the subpoenas were for until after dinner last evening--just hours after the state superior court issued its temporary restraining order on AB 1735--when they received visits at their homes from two FDA special agents from its Office of Criminal Investigations.

In each case, the agents telephoned first, saying they were following up on the subpoenas, and then showed badges before asking to come into the employees’ homes and question them. The situation bears an eery resemblance to the visit by New York agriculture agents to Meadowsweet Dairy within hours of owners Barb and Steve Smith filing suit against the state last December.

Before I relate what the employees say happened next, I should say that I called one of the FDA special agents, Stephen Jackson, on his cell phone, obtained from the business card he left behind. After I identified myself and told him I was inquiring into the grand jury investigation into OPDC, he said, “I’d prefer you not call this number.” I then asked him if he could refer me to an FDA or Justice Department official who might be able to help me, but he said he couldn’t, and suggested I just call the main number of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Fresno.

One of the employees, Amanda Hall, who has worked for OPDC for about a year, said Jackson and his colleague kept inquiring into the sale of raw milk to customers outside California. “They kept saying, ‘Do you know it’s illegal to sell raw milk outside California?’” When she explained that the milk is labeled as pet food and thus okay, “They said, ‘Who told you that?’ I said I learned it from others in the office…They kept asking me if I knew it was illegal…At first they were nice and polite, but they kept getting more agitated. I think they wanted to hear about Mark.”

There was more to come. One of the agents played a tape recording of Amanda taking a phone order from an FDA agent posing as a customer, inquiring whether it was okay for the “customer’s” eight-month-old child to consume colostrum. “I said it was okay. The FDA has no regulations on colostrum. It’s a dietary supplement. And all products are labeled for pet consumption.”

And then even more: Before the agents left, “One of them asked me, ‘Would you ever consider wearing a wire? If you would wear it, you would be getting information from Mark. You could benefit. You wouldn’t be paid millions, but it would sure help you out.’” Amanda declined, and the agent left a card, saying that if she changed her mind, she should call.

The situation was pretty similar for Lizbeth Eugenia Valdes-Urbieta, who has been at OPDC for two years, except the visit seems to have been more traumatic for her than for Amanda. “I’m pregnant, and I’m a crybaby,” she says. Not only that, her husband, mother, and father were present in the house, and her mother was becoming ever more frightened as she heard the agents pressing their questions. “She asked my husband, ‘Is this legal?’ He told her it was.”

They went through the routine about it being illegal to sell raw milk outside California, she says, “And they told me, ‘Don’t worry, you’re not in trouble.’ Then they had a tape of me talking to a customer. He asked me if we ship outside California. He told me he had a son, one year old, and can he drink colostrum?” She says she told him that the children of OPDC employees consume colostrum. “They kept asking me, ‘Who told you about the pet food labels?’”

Maybe because she was so nervous, they didn’t ask her to wear a wire. “After they left, I was shaking,” Lizbeth says.

Mark says he had extensive communication with FDA officials about his pet food labeling back in 2003 and 2004, and that the agency eventually sent him an advisory in early 2005 that “there is no requirement that pet food products have premarket approval by the FDA.”

One last note: Grand jury investigations are normally secret events in which prosecutors try to convince jurors to vote criminal indictments. Witnesses who are subpoenaed have no right to have a lawyer present and can expect to be cross-examined by a skilled government attorney. The identities of jurors are kept secret as well. Mark says he and his employees decided to go public about the grand jury situation after a meeting this morning of the dairy’s dozen employees. “We’re a family here,” he told me. “We’re going to protect ourselves. Our only weapon is the truth.”

But he added that he’s being practical as well. “I’m ready for a raid right now. All the computers are backed up.”

His theory for the government’s latest action: “Our sales are going through the roof. We’re doing $100,000 a week in sales—last quarter, it was $75,000. People are going nuts for raw milk. The FDA is going nuts the other way. I’m the snake. They want to cut off the head of the snake.”

Strange coincidence, these night-time visits by special agents to individuals' homes, just after OPDC wins a big court case. It’s a good thing Mark isn’t paranoid. He might otherwise think there were people out to get him.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (66)

Always fascinating.

In this case, the community may have done it to itself. Apparently in the 1604 hearing an out-of-state person got up and announced his/her consumption of the "pet food."

The core problem here is that just because it's labeled "pet food" doesn't make it OK. A case of "pet food" *wink *wink suggests that the product is mislabeled. I don't actually have any experience with the "pet food" since I am right here in California, so I don't know how the gals handle the orders. They should be emphasizing to customers that the product is not for human consumption.

The colostrum is another matter since it's a supplement. It's interesting that the phone tapes focused on colostrum.

Amanda
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Night time "visits" by government agents...didn't Hitler's Gestapo use those same methods?

And some of you still think I'm paranoid when I say this a war about government intentionally and knowingly taking away rights. Are you waking up yet?

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA

Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBob Hayles
Where are the night time "visits" to doctors who prescribe Rx's off label? What about the pharma companies who try to figure out how to market the off-label uses? How about the doctors who tell me that it's OK to give an Rx that's been black-boxed to my 3 year old? How are these things OK?
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterLauren
wow
this is nuts
its just milk!!!!!!
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered Commentermaria
David, If agents come to your home, are you required to let them in? Can you refuse to talk to them without your lawyer present?

Amanda, I don't understand the distinction about colostrum being a supplement. Is that a California distinction, or a federal one?
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney
Elizabeth, as I understand it, agents can't force you to let them in, but they can cajole you--i.e. we'll tell you something about what you're being subpoenaed for if you'll answer some questions. I think that's what happened here. Most citizens are intimidated, and go along. Maybe a lawyer can help out here and explain further.
Colostrum as a supplement is a federal matter--supplements can be sold without FDA approval, so long as they don't make health claims.
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDavid Gumpert
Elizabeth: Generally, the Fifth Amendment gives broad protection, and if they claim it's not you they are after, even then you can wait to answer until you are subject to formal process (witness subpoena or, as in this case, possibly Grand Jury), have counsel present (especially in the circumstances described for these women, there would be broad protection under the Fifth since it was so threatening and ambiguous that they could reasonably feel that they were targets, in which case they should get "Miranda" warnings without which, the government can't use the "fruits" of information which they obtain). As David says, if you are unfortunate enough to be in front of a Grand Jury, then you won't have a lawyer with you in that room and your only defense to answering would be to plead the Fifth (this would require preparation with a lawyer). You are not required to let them in unless they have a search warrant to search your home (in which case, they can only do what the warrant says they can do = get legal advice, fast). Generally, even with a search warrant you are not required to speak with them, although communication in such circumstances, to mediate and document the search process, can be very helpful if done properly (=get legal advice, fast). Bottom line: without a warrant, in most cases you may politely invite them to leave. These are general comments, and this is not legal advice. One of the things that membership in the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund does, is to provide real-time telephone legal assistance with such confrontations.
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSteve Bemis
Is there anything we can do? Anyone we can call and complain about this to?
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMommaofmany
Bob is right - everyone, we need to be paying attention, and making a lot of noise!

Why can they do this? Because they can. Because no FDA or other bureaucratic official is accountable to any one of us - not to you, not to me. They're not elected, and thus, can't be unelected. And we have no say in the matter.

Mommaofmany - I believe the best thing you can do is to tell everyone (letters to the editor are good, too) you can what our government is doing - nighttime, Gestapo-like visits, intimidation, etc., all in an effort to put a hardworking person - a farmer! - out of busines, and force the rest of us to eat their polluted, GMO, BST processed garbage.

Do me a favor, everyone. Find out what you're government is doing to us. The situation with OP is just the tip of the iceberg, and if they can conquer OP, the rest of us farmers are next, and then they're coming for you.

Read this:
www.infowars.com

Fightening stuff is ahead. We ain't seen nothin' yet.
March 20, 2008 | Unregistered Commentercheryl
Wow is right!

I work for OPDC selling dairy at the local farmer's markets here in Southern California. Questions like those the agents were asking are asked of me at every market. Just last week, I realized that these people asking me could easily be authorities gathering information.

I was raised on a dairy farm. As long as I could remember, I had always heard that the local dairymen had wanted to sell raw but were afraid to take the risk. My dad, after each evening milking, would sell milk straight from the tank to the local Hispanic, Pakistani and Indian families for cost. If he was getting 50 cents a gallon, he'd sell it for that price. These families would buy it as a basic foodstuff. Even though these animals were fed corn silage and grain, not grass, there was never an issue. I remember one or two caucasians came by wanting to try but were concerned about whether it was healthy or not. They did and had problems with the raw milk while we and every one else drinking the same stuff didn't. The lesson I took as a twelve year old was that for those who are predisposed for raw dairy to be a problem, it will be. For those who are not predisposed for it to be a problem, it won't be.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterMaurice
Yes Bob, I believe Hitler did do that too.

If something is labeled for pet consumption, why would that affect OP? He has no control over what people do with the product after they purchase it.

Years ago, many elderly in this country were eating pet food. And apparently still do... I wonder if those pet food workers were visited?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDB1130F935A25752C1A965958260

How traumatic for those people.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
David, So can my NY farmers sell colostrum without a raw milk permit and without the blessing of our Ag & Mkts regulators? If so, can they advertise in the paper, take it to farmers markets, sell in the health food stores, etc?

The fact that colostrum would be treated differently than raw milk just blows me away. Colostrum comes from the same part of the cow and can be subject to the same sources of contamination. I am amazed that it is treated differently.

Steve, Thank you. Sounds like they should have been read their rights. Another great argument for joining the FTCLDF.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney
Elizabeth -- My understanding is that colostrum is not allowed in fluid milk in California because it contains blood. Since it is not allowed to be bottled as a dairy product OPDC was able to get a permit to bottle it as a health food. I expect it's still subject to testing, but not by the CDFA here, it would be by the Dept of Public Health instead.

Here in Calif, selling colostrum does require a permit but my understanding is that OPDC can actually ship it across the country since it's not a dairy product.

Amanda
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Sylvia,

My mom talks about eating "pet food grade tuna" when she was *real short* on a dollar. I don't know if there really was such a thing, but it sounds like something I'd rather not experience.

The issue with OP and pet labels is not just what is on the container but how they represent it in the sale. That's why the agents made the phone calls -- to see what the sales people would actually say. Legally, they should probably say "Hey, you're from XX state. You know I can't sell you milk for human consumption."

Amanda
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Amanda, I have to disagree slightly.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility, and if the product is clearly labeled as "Pet Food, Not For Human Consumption", as is required of raw milk here in Georgia, there has to be some of that personal responsibility laid at the consumers feet. If one buys said "pet food", reads the label (as they should), sees the pet food designation, and chooses to consume it anyway, that consumer bears some responsibility too.

No...the producer should not lie, and there would be civil remedies available to the consumer if the producer DID lie, but I frankly don't see where there should be a criminal investigation.

Mark and OP are being persecuted for having the gall to simply do what should be the law anyway...allowing folks to make their own food choices without a nanny state for them.

I'm not a lawyer...just a dumb farmer...but I thing the state of California is walking on very thin ice in this persecution. I'd like to hear from Gary or someone else from the FTCLDF on this, but given the past actions, and the timing of this when juxtaposed against the recent unfavorable ruling against California, I believe a very good case, civil OR criminal, could be made that this constitutes malicious prosecution.

More and more I learn that I love my country but hate my government.

Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA

Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterBob Hayles
When it comes to court action, the government has unlimited funds where Mark does not. If the government’s case is week why not pummel the accused with multiple charges that force them to spend more money to defend themselves and eventual the government wins by brute force.

This will be a watershed case for the rest of the country. If this battle in California/NY is won or lost, you will likely see many other states follow suit based on the results. Raw Milk has won many battles in many states but that can change. The BIG guys are behind all this nonsense with all their money and the only power the little guy has is a vote.

It is imperative that if you do not wish to lose your rights you must stand and fight for them. Fight with your checkbook and your vote. Call the elected officials over the FDA, CDFA, etc.. Send support to the legal defense fund and continue to support your dairy and your state raw milk associations. Also, remember it only takes a second to send a note or say to your farmer “I really appreciate all you do.” I can only imagine how stressful all this must be one these farmers.

Rod
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterRod
Being able to halt a public official at the door, or better yet, at the property line with polite but firm stance is an empowering strategy. Any citizen has the right to question authority when faced with any bureaucratic assault. One should always have on hand the "Public Servant Questionnaire" and a ready-to-go video camera. These two tools have successfully put the brakes on aggressive "public servants". (see David's post "NY Dairy Farmer Turns the Tables When the Ag Inspectors Arrive for a Mystery Visit")

A Google of "publicservantquestionnaire.pdf" will find you a copy. At minimum, it gives a person immediate power and can provide time to consult legal advise.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSally Beckwith
Amanda

Colostrum doesn't contain blood (hemoglobin). It does contain immunoglobulins, which aid in immune function.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKirsten
Hi David,

I just wanted to thank you for getting this information out there and keeping this story alive.

~ Sue
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered Commentersue bette
OPDC home page advertises out of state shipments of their products. When you click on UPS, it takes you to the page where you can order. It says, “We ship to any state”.
I don’t see the description of “pet food” mentioned.

This marketing strategy clearly implies that if you live in another state other than California, and you would like to purchase any OP product, it is available to you.

Maybe Mr. McAfee needs to be a little more subtle in his advertising. He could a least pretend he’s selling his products for pet consumption.
March 21, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAndrew

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.