The Real Message of a Slick New Video: A Cause Evolves into a Movement
Saturday, June 21, 2008 at 11:17AM
Watching farmers in Pennsylvania, New York, and California take big hits from regulators intent on putting the farmers out of business and scaring the public away from raw milk, it’s been tempting to become despairing about the cause of food rights.
But a few developments in recent weeks suggest that that consumers who value their food rights are fighting back. They’re fighting back in more organized ways—ways that legislators and the media can relate to.
In North Carolina, Ruth Ann Foster reports that consumers have heavily lobbied legislators to pass legislation that would nullify a rule requiring the dying raw milk—much the same issue as occurred in Georgia last year, where consumers rallied and de-railed a similar proposal. The new legislation just passed an important committee milestone.
It seems crazy that consumers should have to organize at all about something as ridiculous as preventing milk from being adulterated, but that’s how bad things have become in some areas of the country.
The major developments, though, seems to be occurring in California, where political maneuvering is going on in connection with SB 201, which would replace the 10-coliforms-per-milliliter standard of AB 1735 with an intensive pathogen testing and HACCP (hazard analysis critical control point) program requirement.
A hearing on the legislation is scheduled for next Tuesday at 1:30 in Sacramento, and lots of consumers are busy contacting legislators to back SB 201, much as they did to try to get AB 1735 rescinded earlier in the year. But in preparation for this latest push, raw milk proponents have put together a slick video in favor of the legislation. The video is built around the day-long hearing held April 15 in Sacramento, chaired by Sen. Dean Florez, the principal sponsor of SB 201.
The video is the brainchild of Christine Chessen, the former college classmate of Sen. Florez, who contacted him late last year to encourage him to help do something about AB 1735. What’s impressive about the video is how skillfully it weaves together the expert testimony provided at the April 15 hearing. The kicker is the endorsement of HACCP to ensure raw milk safety, provided in a barely audible voice by Linda Harris, associa t e direc t or of science and research at the Western Institute for Food Safety and Security (WIFSS) of the University of California at Davis—thought to be a mouthpiece for the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
Christine Chessen has also formed a consumer organization known as the California Real Milk Association in Los Angeles (which doesn’t yet have a web site).
There's no assurance that SB 201 will pass and be signed into law. Despite Linda Harris' endorsement of HACCP, the CDFA has shown no sign it favors the legislation--in fact, it has said a number of times in court documents that it likes AB 1735--and it still has lots of friends in the legislature.
Still, a movement is definitely afoot. And, of course, a movement wouldn’t be a movement without some sniping among the adherents. Aajonus Vonderplanitz, the raw milk advocate who fought to save raw milk in California during the 1980s and 1990s, has criticized SB 201. In an email to supporters, he wrote, “ AB1735 can be beaten on a constitutional basis, not commercial basis. If SB201 passes, it is unlikely that both can be defeated on constitutional basis. My multiple constitutional lawsuit is waiting for the outcome so we know exactly for what we have to sue. We will file an injunction that will probably be upheld because I think that the feds do not want it tried in the courts because they know they will lose with my research and yours.”
Mark McAfee, owner of Organic Pastures Dairy Co., has argued that AB 201 allows raw milk dairies to use the coliform standard if they’d prefer not to embrace the pathogen testing and HACCP program. Aajonus “can still sue till the cows come home about AB 1735," he says in urging him to give up his opposition.
I’m not sure how soon Aajonus is going to be suing anyone. He made a big deal about filing a suit against AB 1735, and nothing ever came of it—the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund took the initiative there.
But what the heck—what would a movement be without some internal dissension?
Reader Comments (21)
One thing that was a bit strange to me was Mark McAfee talking about his equipment and saying that it should be "clean but not sterile" (or something to that effect). He seemed to be making a sort of competitive exclusion argument -- that the bacteria on the non-sterile equipment would protect it from becoming contaminated. I wonder what other dairy people here think about that approach.
My only comparable experience is making kefir in my own kitchen. I do my best to sterilize my equipment to prevent cross-contamination. I am not concerned about pathogens per se, but about bacteria turning my batch. The risk of cross-contamination in my kitchen is probably lower than it is on a working farm, so it seems strange to me not to sterilize milking equipment. Thoughts?
Amanda
Having listened to the Florez hearing, it was nice to see some of it.
It looks like SB201 might have a chance of passing. This video will certainly help.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/fac/33511-33530.html
Since OP is organic, I would assume that chemicals are not used and steaming is a method possibly used.
I would question the term "sterilize" with the methods in the link. The environment cannot be sterlized and if the equipment isn't sealed, how would it stay sterilized? I don't know if any of the pathogens are spores, if so, wouldn't that require an autoclave of some sort to kill them?
That's how I feel about my kitchen kefir-making: I give it a shot but know I'm not working in a sterile environment. However, the difference is that Mark apparently prefers it not to be sterile. (At least that's what the clip made it sound like.)
I actually think SB 201 has a decent chance at passing. It doesn't look like it's an urgency bill. That's probably just as well.
Amanda
Amanda
I have been making yogurt, kefir and butter on a weekly basis for over twenty five years and I sterilize nothing, nor do I pasteurize the yogurt after it has been made, a standard procedure used in order to increase the shelf life of the product and which in my opinion negates most of the good that yogurt has to offer.
I can see where Mark McAfee’s statement "clean but not sterile" would appear to be an oxymoron to some. These individuals have not fully grasped the importance of the need of a more balanced awareness of the broader issues relating to micro-organisms. Cleanliness deals with what we can see and sterility deals with what we can not. A clean environment may influence to a certain extent what we cannot see however it is no measure of sterility. In fact a sterile environment is dangerous one.
The vast numbers of micro-organisms that naturally colonize our ecosystem are critical to health and well being because they protect the host from opportunistic pathogens through a process known as “colonization resistance”. The types of micro-organisms, their interactions with each other and with the host’s environment, the local conditions, and host resistance are all key factors that collectively influence whether one acquires an infection or not.
This warlike focus on micro-organisms is based on a narrow minded psychological madness which Charles Mackay describes well in his book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" where he states "We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one new delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first. …Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
Some may articulate the above statement to the raw milk movement as well and they may be somewhat correct. Have we indeed all gone mad or is there a method to our madness?
Ken Conrad
Is it a chlorine residue issue or really a problem with sterility in the equipment? I am just not getting why having sterile equipment is a problem. The milk has beneficial bacteria, so it's not like you are sterilizing the food.
I did not realize that people pasteurize yogurt.
Amanda
Presumably if SB 201 passes, promulgation of regulations will follow...the devil will be in the details including sanitation. Why no mention of colostrum in the bill?
The other day I received a phone call from a biodynamic farmer here in CO. Among many other topics, he talked about his apprenticeship in Germany. (He's been farming for about 30 years.)
He's a believer in grassfed, don't cut the horns off (destroys a cow's vitality, immunity and it's cruel); know your herd and learning from nature. He reads manure (and pasture) like a mom reads diapers - every day. He amazed me with his wisdom. He talked about how we need beneficial e.coli (that fights the bad e.coli) in our gut.
He told me about a German study where small varying amounts of manure was added to 4 batches of milk and presented to families for a taste test. The milk with the most manure won the taste test.
He said "I'd rather have some of our manure in our milk than iodine or chlorine."
I'm not a farmer, but I was raised around horses, and I instinctively knew what he was talking about. Healthy poop smells good. Sick poop smells awful. Good poop does wonders for soil. (You can't buy it at Home Depot. You have to find grasfed manure.)
He said "manure from grassfed cows is just grass that has been "enzymized".
Our government has created a food system (I think Dave Milano first said this here?) that is collapsing on itself. They created a system of putrid, cruel, toxic and unsustainable production, and now they're trying to legislate bacteria.
Even raw milk drinkers are afraid of manure.
Look what we've done to ourselves and our future for a quick buck.
-Blair
Thank you,
-Blair
I have to agree with your farmer friend in Colorado. We maintain a strictly "grass fed" operation on our farm for all of our ruminants (sheep and cattle). Our animal husbandry is such that if you smell manure you have a problem.
Our two cows produce very firm excretement and NEVER splat on the ground. We plan to begin milking them within the next year and I do not worry about bad microbes contaminating the milk and won't as long as I rotate pasture, feed high quality hay in the winter and keep their winter stalls clean and tidy.
From my own observation - as soon as you feed a cow or sheep a grain loaded diet normal rumination breaks down. What comes out the other end is not normal and causes some of the bacterial problems. Confined Ag farms are also not a healthy environment for cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys, and sheep. The stress that these animals are under causes the immune system to break down and allow harmful pathogens to take over (only antibiotic laced feeds keep most of these farm animals alive). They also stink!!! I would never feed my family meat or milk from any of these places.
Colostrum is classified as a dietary supplement, not as a dairy product, so it would not be covered by any dairy regulations such as SB201. (At the Federal level, USDA handles dairy, FDA handles dietary supplements.)
How can one make a statement like that and at the same time agree that more pathogen testing is needed to assure that raw milk is safe to drink?
I *am* afraid of manure. I won't apologize for it. When products have a fecal coliform count of over one million, that's a case where "clean but not sterile" probably missed the mark. There are obviously pathogens in the OPDC manure (e coli 0157:H7 found in the cows in 2006 and campy in 2007). It seems crazy to seek out such manure, but apparently many people are doing just that. To each her own.
C2 - SB 201 should be interesting. What will CDFA/CDPH be allowed to require in the HACCPs? Kirsten is right about the colostrum. It's one of the reasons I suggested an amendment to Dean Florez. Here's my letter to him:
http://www.rebuild-from-depression.com/resources/SB201.pdf
Historical revisionism was a topic of a previous post on this blog. There's an example of it currently on the Fresno Bee blog. Let's hope the defense in the Marler case is a little better thought out.
http://www.fresnobeehive.com/news/2008/06/raw_milk_drinkers_organize.html#comments
Amanda
Amanda
Thanks for the link.
I am passionately pro raw milk and this kind of lack of respect for the facts makes me fear for our cause.
Our family cows eat only grass and alfalfa, except for certain times in early lactation when one of them might need a little grain to keep her body condition. I try VERY hard to keep manure out of the milk. I give it to the pigs and chickens, not people, if I know it has manure in it. My equipment and methods are very clean and as sanitary as I can manage but not sterile. Even if grassfed manure in the milk improves flavor and is safe, it is not something I am going to intentionally feed my family.
A most interesting aspect of the video is its strong reliance on individuals' experiences. Many, many times we have discussed the "lack" of "scientific proof" that raw milk is beneficial. Well, first there is emerging science in the European studies showing decreases in hay fever and other allergies as a result of raw milk consumption. Second, we simply cannot ignore the personal testimony of hundreds of thousands who know raw milk helps them. I defy anyone to dismiss the experience of thousands of Moms who know what works for their kids, or to try and take away from them the food they know fosters their health.
Yogurt must be pasteurized to be legally sold in stores or farmers markets or directly on-farm. The only work around is to make it yourself. Or you can buy the milk, and pay the farmer for their time to make the yogurt for you, etc. Regardless most recipes call for heating the milk to a temperature above 102F (usually atleast 110F), which makes it no longer RAW (although it technically isn't pasteurized either).