Sen. Florez’s Message to Raw Milk Community: There’s No Going Back, But Let’s Make a Deal
Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at 01:46PM Now that I’ve had a few hours to reflect, I feel reasonably confident that something will come out of the California hearing. However, it won’t be a repeal of the 10-coliform-per-milliliter standard of AB1735. Sen. Dean Florez, who chaired yesterday’s California Senate hearing on raw milk, said as much on several occasions.
Perhaps most dramatically, he asked a group of five scientific experts at the conclusion of their testimony in favor of raw milk, “What should be put on the governor’s desk?”
One of the experts stated, “Go back to what it was.”
Sen. Florez shot back, “It is not going back to the way it was. It is going to be a tougher standard.”
Now, at first glance, that sounds ominous. But as the hearing proceeded over a period of six hours, it became clear that Sen. Florez has thought about the process very carefully, and appreciates that, politically, it is impossible to simply repeal AB1735, since that already failed in the California Assembly in January.
What he envisions is a replacement of AB1735 with something that appears tougher to germ-frightened legislators, but is in fact more reasonable for producers. Later in his questioning of the pro-raw-milk experts, he stated, “Why don’t we talk about pathogen testing and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control point)? At the end of the day, (raw milk) is a different product. I’m just trying to figure out a better test that comes to a standard. But we’re not going back to the way it was. We’re going to strengthen the standard and then we are going to the pasteurized milk industry and doing the same thing there.” That last line elicited strong applause from the 200 or so supporters in the audience.
Sen. Florez in his questioning of experts pro and con, along with the producers—Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy Co. and Collette Cassidy (co-owner with her husband Ron Garthwaite) of Claravale Farm—continually returned to the themes of HACCP and pathogen testing. (HACCP involves developing a highly structured production process, which can be audited, to reduce the risk of food contamination.) The area where he showed the most uncertainty was over the specifics of a coliform standard—whether it should be increased from 10 to possibly 50 or 100, or whether it can be dispensed with entirely.
He explicitly invited the experts in favor of raw milk to help. “I would encourage you to conference call and produce a bill for Sen. (Edward) Vincent and me that is stronger than a single test. I am asking you to go a step further for us. Determine how Claravale and Organic Pastures can be the leaders in raw milk…Agriculture has a lot of sway in this building…Our raw milk dairies don’t have political clout. We’re trying to allow raw milk dairies to have political clout.”
Mark McAfee suggested he was quite receptive to the senator’s suggested approach. “I am very comfortable with HACCP,” he said. He pointed out that he already has a “basic” HACCP program in place that he had used when growing apples, though Sen. Florez prodded him to go further. “You say you have a basic HACCP plan. Are you ready to do a world class HACCP plan?”
Mark said he was prepared to accept a plan that could be audited by outsiders, though “not the state. It all has to do with the mindset of the participants.” He also pointed out he is already testing OPDC’s milk for key pathogens on a regular basis.
While Mark said he was open to a coliform standard of 50 coliforms per milliliter, Colleen said she wasn’t. “Even with 50, we wouldn’t pass consistently.”
What encourages me that Sen. Florez is serious is that he was talking in terms of specific items that could be included within legislation, and what compromises might be possible. Politicians are usually more serious at that stage than when they wax eloquent about broad generalities.
It was also clear he appreciates the urgency created by the lawsuit filed by OPDC and Claravale against the California Department of Food and Agriculture (in which a judge granted a temporary restraining order against enforcing AB1735). He asked Colleen about the suit, and she answered that it was only filed when Claravale and OPDC were pushed close to the brink of shutting down. “It’s preferable to have a legislative solution than a court solution,” she told Sen. Florez.
Sen. Florez was clearly very pissed at CDFA for not being there, and even asked Mark and Colleen what they thought. Mark wisely took the high road, saying “I’m very disappointed. They have a lot to add.”
After the hearing, I asked Sen. Florez what else might happen because of CDFA’s refusal to send a representative. “We’re not done with that," he told me. "We’re going to ask the governor’s office to looking into it.”
And has the senator become a raw milk convert? No, he said, he doesn’t drink it. “I’m trying to remain neutral,” he said. He added that hearing from his old classmate, Christine Chessen, last fall, “inspired me to try to get a better standard.” Left unsaid is that he's being talked about as a future candidate for lieutenant governor.
Reader Comments (37)
"He asked Colleen about the suit, and she answered that it was only filed when Claravale and OPDC were pushed close to the brink of shutting down. “It’s preferable to have a legislative solution than a court solution,” she told Sen. Florez."
Sorry, but I disagree. A legeslative solution, while possibly favorable in the short term, will leave the door open to the CDFA and CDPH to administratively tighten the screws later, or for the CDFA to do another midnight raid on our rights as they did last year, undoing any current legeslative solutions that are promulgated.
No, because of the government's past actions, I feel only a slam dunk, scorched earth victory, in the form of a court telling the CDFA and the rest to basically go away, will work and prevent future harassment.
Additionally, I see nothing in David's reporting on the hearing (my 'puter doesn't have audio) regarding another issue, equal to or more important than, the safety issue.
Where is the discussion about folks rights? Where is the discussion about a consumer's right to make their own choices regarding nutrition, rather than having the nanny state give us a list of government approved foods that we must choose from, that may or may not inmclude foods we would choose if we had the right of personal choice?
At the end of the day, that is what this is all about...personal choice, because both sides can come up with this or that study that supports their side.
All consumers deserve the right to look at the issue and the information on both sides, and make their own choice.
That's what I think...but then, I'm just a dumb goat farmer.
Bob Hayles
Thornberry Village Homestead
Jasper, GA
Thornberry Village Homestead...a small goat dairy, owned by God, managed by Bob and Tyler.
Lysteria is a bogeyman, used to scare folks by the public health system. Can it happen? Yes. Is it likely to? Not according to CDC data.
Bob Hayles
Thank you so much for attending the hearing and reporting back to us, we are all very grateful. Things do sound better than what I was thinking would happen. If those "world class" plans can be done, Mark is the one to do it. His passion, drive and determination stand strongly in favor of success.
Christine Chessen, how I thank you too! If only EVERYONE could understand the power WE THE PEOPLE truly have, we would not be in so many messes as we are now. NEVER let ANYONE tell you "one person can't make a difference". We CAN and DO. It works better when all those "one person"s get together though. If everyone who reads this blog would take the time to speak to their representatives in Congress and state legislatures, we will be able to make a BIG difference in what ever we choose to stand up for.
Oh, sorry. I didn't mean to get up so high on the soapbox. I just get a little excited when I see how people working together makes a difference.
Keep up the great work David, and thanks again.
Good reporting, David.
Sharon
The hearing last night was loaded with good testimony and left me feeling optimistic that if properly drafted with controls on the agency's discretion, a new law might be livable.
"The bacteria was discovered near a piece of equipment used on the production line after the milk is pasteurized, according to local media reports." http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?n=82734-fsa-list-ria
Also, the 3 elderly adults and fetus were typical victims with compromised immune systems. Even the milk, by virtue of its pasteurization, had a compromised immune system, as Steve significantly pointed out.
"Got probiotic milk?"
It’s C2--not Darth Vadar, though I do know him. Been thinking about our interesting exchange earlier (for a dumb goat farmer you seem pretty smart) and decided that we might vacation on the same planet sometimes, but do not routinely live together. For that reason, it is really tough to talk about the science, especially the purported “health claims.” For that reason, I'm not going to respond point-by-point to the other discussion, though I did read it and contemplate your points. These new posts about what is going on over in California makes me think that you and others from the raw milk community might understand how public health and science view Listeria and other outbreaks given more time and effort. Personally, I appreciate the effort to find common ground, especially if it leads to prevention of even a single illness and promotion of your farms and lifestyle. I won’t use “silver bullet” again—obviously not a productive approach to communication.
To Steve:
Bingo--you proposed a hypothesis that can be tested: survival/growth of Listeria in raw milk verus milk contaminated after pasteurization. Maybe it's been done, or maybe not...but, getting closer to how scientists approach these questions.
C2
In the past year there have probably been a dozen or two farms in PA and NY whose raw milk was claimed by the respective state agencies to be "contaminated" with L. monocytogenes - I lost count and even stopped bothering to forward the events to this and other groups when they occurred. (There was yet another one in PA announced just yesterday.) Every single press release out of the NY and PA state agencies were boilerplate and only the farm name and location were changed. All also contained the language "...while no illnesses have been reported...".
So, as Steve stated, L. monocytogenes in pasteurized milk is potentially very dangerous and deadly, but in clean raw milk from pasture-fed cows with its full complement of probiotic bacteria Listeria is pretty much a non-issue.
Will they truely apply the same standards to pasturized dairy as they do/will to raw dairy?
I head part of the hearings last night, as others said, the Senator was impressive with his questioning and knowledge. It was very informative.
As said numerous times, the animals health and sanitation is the key to decreasing/eleminating contamination.
"Also, the samples are chemically treated to specifically encourage the growth of Listeria and inactivate competing bacteria, and are then cultured at 90 degrees for two days."
There is no Tri-Corder test to find Listeria in milk (or any other food). What you describe is traditional culture of the bacteria, still the most definitive method. Please beware of the pregnancy-like test kits that some are using on their farms to "prove" Listeria, E. coli O157 or other dangerous pathogens are not present. You question the manufacturers of drugs, but not the people marketing these kits to your farms?
One of the key differences in a HACCP for raw milk, would probably be that it won't be a set of procedures applicable just to the milking/processing operation, since raw milk's differences in quality literally start with the animal's feed and nourishment.
A significant signal sent by the Senator (in so many words, said more than once) was that normally, agricultural interests get several chances to make up their own rules, drawn from their own expertise, to meet the legislature's goals for food safety. He freely admitted that the procedure did not work in the case of AB1735, where the mandate came top-down instead of from the farmers. He said the hearing, and the work that is now beginning, is an attempt to correct for the fact that raw milk producers are small and do not have much political clout. In effect, he was promising to create that political clout (notwithstanding, that the hearing room was 200-strong with clout).
Again, all of this sounded pretty good, and we'll see how it works out. What was quite obvious, is that individuals' concerns were important, were heard, were credible and as Florez said late in the proceeding, the very fact that a hearing went on for six hours is the kind of political "hay" that he can use to convince legislators who have to vote, that this issue is important.
Finally, the fact that CDFA was absent clearly hurt them. By not playing, they in effect marginalized themselves. They are not to be discounted by any means, since their industry-based political clout is substantial, but the Senator's promise to deal next with pasteurized milk, after having set benchmarks with raw milk (instead of the other way around) seems to me to be quite an important strategic strength which has come out of this process.
If we continue to manipulate our ecosystem and immune systems to the degree with which we do, virulent organisms will increasingly become avirulent in their quest for survival. We need to abandon this ongoing war against organism and learn to treat them with respect.
Sylvia’s brother who experienced renal failure as a result of an adverse drug reaction to Azithromycin is not surprising. Oxalobacter formigenes are bacteria which occur naturally in the kidney. They are susceptible to antibiotics and if destroyed will lead to a disruption of the kidney’s natural environment thus predisposing the individual to numerous renal complications.
Ken Conrad
It took me a while to find the citations, but in answer to your question the following recent studies have shown that pathogen counts in raw milk samples tend to attenuate over time.
http://www.realmilk.com/documents/SheehanPowerPointResponse.pdf
-------
Doyle et al. (1982) showed that C. jejuni survived longer in sterile milk than in raw milk and suggested that the microflora of the latter "may have produced metabolites toxic to C. jejuni." They also noted that, "unlike sterile milk, raw milk contains lactoperoxidase," which "produces metabolites that are toxic to many gram-negative bacteria."
BSK Food & Dairy Laboratories (2002) inoculated raw colostrum and raw milk samples provided by Organic Pastures, a family-owned dairy from Fresno, CA with a mix of three pathogens and monitored the bacterial counts over the course of 14 days. The laboratory concluded, "Raw colostrum and raw milk do not appear to support the growth of Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7 or Listeria monocytogenes."
In both studies, pathogen counts declined over time and in some cases reached below the limit of detection within a week.
Raw milk may not kill pathogens but it contains important substances that do.
References:
* Doyle MP and Romand JD. Prevelance and survival of Campylobacter jejuni in unpasteurized milk. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1982;44(5):1154-8.
* McAffee M, unpublished data.
We actually DO probably reside on the same planet...the difference is you live LEFT of the prime meridian while I live RIGHT of it...LOL.
I do have a specific question for you, and I want you to combine thought processes when you answer...answer as a member of the public health system on the scientific side, but also consider that you are a citizen of this country and believe (I hope) in the freedoms that our forefathers bled and died to give us.
My most passionatly held reason for the legalization of raw milk, and other nutritionally dense foods, is because of my belief that the government has no right, morally or under the constitution, to deny citizens the right to make their own nutritional choices without government interference.
I believe that both sides of the issue can be argued using this or that study, and this or that "scientific paper" or published research. For every study you have showing raw dairy's dangers, I can come up with another showing benefits that outweigh the risks.
If that is right, then the only way to make a decision is left to rights. Do we, as free citizens of the greatest country on earth, have the right to make our own nutritional choices, and if not, what is the legal justification for that denial?
You could not get me to eat McDonald's food if I was starving to death. I won't touch Sushi (well, not exactly...I've used sushi for years, I just always called it fishbait). I won't eat deli meats or commercial hot dogs.
All of those foods have a far worse track record, disease wise, than raw dairy. All are also legal.
And I wouldn't make ANY of them illegal, or try to deny folks that want them the right to purchase them.
All I ask is that folks have the same rights regarding nutrient dense foods.
Let's make this personal.
Suppose you and I were neighbors, and I had a few dairy goats. You come over one day and tell me you want a gallon of raw goat's milk, and you know I charge 12 bucks a gallon for it, and hold out a ten and two ones. Where does the government have the right to say I can't take the money and you take the milk? Show me in the constitution where that is allowed? Tell me where the constitution allows the government to interfere with a private food transaction between citizens.
C2...sorry, but I jusat believe in the intentions of the founding fathers more than most folks. If someone doesn't like the constitution, change it, don't trash it.
Bob Hayles
We’re seeing another side to you. C2 has commanded your respect. It’s nice that you are able to let down your obnoxious side and interact with someone in an intelligent and respectful manner—thank you!
I am curious as to where the original exchange between the two of you took place. Another blog or email?
By the way, I don’t believe the constitution says anything about selling alcohol to children, but we have laws regulating this type of sale. Most people believe it is a good idea. Alcohol consumption is dangerous for children and raw milk contaminated with a pathogen is equally as dangerous.
Cordially,
CP
I could ask a similar question: Have you ever met a parent whose child became seriously ill from drinking raw milk? Put these two parents together in the same room and you have the discussions taking place on this blog.
I would love to see a study conducted with two control groups of children who suffer from the same severity of asthma. One group of children drinks raw milk and other group takes a high quality probiotic. My hypothesis: both groups would have a reduction in their symptoms.
Thank you Ken for that bit of information. My brother is in his 50s and I think the last time he was sick was as a small child, he contracted the mumps about a year after recieving the vacc. He is having a difficult time not being "healthy". He isn't getting worse, so far things appear to have leveled, his K+ has come down to 5.7 from 7.3...We are monitoring his labs. Poor guy looks like a junky.
"One group of children drinks raw milk and other group takes a high quality probiotic. "
Is your point that a child should have the "high quality probiotic" instead of raw dairy? Don't you feel that is dictating what parents feed their children?
As pointed out, deli meats, hot dogs have a far worse track record for contamination than raw dairy. And to top it off, it has been approved that the deli meats et al can be sprayed with viruses. How unappetizing, not something I would recommend. I can only imagine the disruption of the guts natural flora.
Any food that is contaminated with certain bacteria has the potential to be dangerous. The 3 who died in Mass. are a good example, as is the spinach infection.