Navigation
Search

Login
« Pasteurizing Mother's Milk: The Bureaucrats Should Pay Us for These Ideas! | Main | For Big Pharma, Desperate Times Require Desperate Measures: Now It’s Statins for Kids »
Thursday
10Jul

So the Question for NY Raw Milk Drinkers May Come Down to This: Do You Make a Deal with the Devil?

bigstockphoto_Devil_1784032.jpgThere’s a move afoot in New York state to allow raw milk to be sold via retail outlets.

When I noted the possibility in a recent posting, I made mention of the fact that New York’s Department of Agriculture and Markets wants to ensure it keeps a tight rein on the marketplace.

I didn’t realize quite how tight until Steve Smith, whose Meadowsweet Dairy LLC still has a court case against Ag and Markets pending and is awaiting a decision on an agency hearing last January over the dairy's refusal to obtain a raw milk permit, alerted me to the legislation’s current language. Steve and wife Barbara, as you’ll recall, got into a tangle with Ag and Markets because the agency didn’t take well to the dairy’s decision last year to distribute raw milk products directly to consumers via a limited liability company, similar to a cowshare. There were weird visits during snowstorms and questionable enforcement of a search warrant last December.

The proposed legislation dates back to last January, but apparently it’s been refined more recently, to include language satisfactory to Ag and Markets. It does indeed state, “The production for retail sale and the retail sale of raw, untreated milk for human consumption shall be authorized in this state.”

But then the next paragraph states, “Every person engaged in the production of raw, untreated milk for human consumption shall hold a permit issued by the commissioner.”

Steve says that the legislation, “if passed as written, will end our company and make the matter pending in Judge Egan's court moot. It could also be used to prevent any cowshare or herdshare in NY. And it seems that anyone with a family cow would require a permit.”

There’s one other thing Steve doesn’t mention: the right to produce raw dairy products other than milk, like yogurt, butter, and cream, as the Meadowsweet LLC currently does, would presumably go away as well.

I suppose one could argue that the “right” to buy raw milk retail would represent such a huge gain as to make the rights to herdshares and other raw dairy product irrelevant. And the fact that Ag and Markets is willing to make such a magnanimous gesture is testimony to the consumer outcry over the case involving the Smiths and other cases involving questionable findings of listeria in raw milk.

But I think we’ve learned enough about how the bureaucracies operate in real life to appreciate that any such deals with the devil are just that—deals with the devil. Are they worth making in the interests of satisfying growing demand for raw milk from consumers who aren't able to arrange trips to dairies or to organize herd shares? That may be the question as this legislation wends its way through the legislature.

***

No big surprise here, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Michigan Department of Agriculture didn't respond to an "intent to sue" letter from the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund in May. So the FTCLD is suing--filing suit Monday in U.S. District Court in Washington, DC, against the two agencies.  



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (24)

So under this law you couldn't even milk your own cow/goat and drink the milk. I guess you'd have to have "pets" to feed it to.

July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKirsten
“Every person engaged in the production of raw, untreated milk for human consumption shall hold a permit issued by the commissioner.”

I am a bit confused as to how this is a change. Isn't this already the case in NY?
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney
elizabeth,

no, this isn't already the case. currently, the law basically states that "no person shall sell, offer for sale or otherwise make available to consumers" raw milk unless they have a permit. and consumer is defined as somebody who "purchases" the milk.

the suggested "law" would require everybody who owns a cow to "hold a permit." it's nuts.
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterGary Cox
Every single office-holder to whom I wrote protest letters regarding Mark Nolt answered in more or less the same way:

What are you complaining about? Raw milk is legal in Pennsylvania, they said. It merely requires a permit. No big deal, of course. Unless somebody refuses to play along.

Apparently there's no reason to waste valuable regulation-writing time considering whether the state really ought to be involved as they are in milk sales.

They can hide behind the public health jargon, but as they diligently protect us from ourselves, our health is deteriorating. No matter. They have a job to do. And we obviously don't know what's good for us.

The fact is that in these days of hyperactive regulation, every permitting system opens a very ugly, money-grubbing, freedom-stealing can of bureaucratic worms. In this case it's not just the freedom of farmers who want to involve themselves freely in their local economy. Consumer's rights are trampled as well. In essence, I am not allowed to go to a farmer to buy his milk (milk!) unless a third party gives him permission to sell it to me. That's worse than crazy.

So I escape the system, by owning a family cow. Eventually, if the trend continues (and every sports fan knows that trends tend to continue) they will come after my cow, as unchecked bureaucrats now feel empowered to edge toward in New York.
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDave Milano
"the suggested "law" would require everybody who owns a cow to "hold a permit." it's nuts."

I don't see any reason for any requirement for a permit. What's next? You know they won't stop at just cows.
July 10, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
The FDAs stated policy basically is raw milk is hazzardous to your health, the elderly and the children should never ever consume this product for any reason.
A comrade of theirs at the CDC Division of Oral Health states that fluoridation is still an under utilized "very effective health measure" A comrade of his at the APHA says that fluoridated water "has enormous health benefits"
If I read this correctly what they are saying is Raw Milk is a hazzardous material and Fluoride produces enormous health benefits.
Is it any wonder we cannot get laws passed favorable to raw milk, we are dealing with Dr Frankenstien or the devil as David states.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2008710/us_nm/water_usa_dc
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon
Here is another important article revealing who we are struggling with in our effort to gain freedom of choise and access to what we individually place in our mouth.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Standing-up-to-terroist-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-080710-287.html
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterDon
I was out in my Oscar de la Renta sunglasses and designer frock milking my goats today just like any other gangsta. At 5 foot 6 inches and 140 lbs I look like an Lilliputian when I stroll the halls of my local hospital. My "failure to thrive" must be the fault of my diet, which includes whole raw milk, cheese, and farmstead eggs and veggies. When my geriatric neighbors offer to buy my cheese, I have to tell them it would be like selling them hashish, even though they take responsibility for their own health and swear they would never sue me if they became sick.

If the government wishes to visit every premises with a lactating animal - be it cow, doe, ewe, or woman - it is truly in violation of all our civil liberties and an absurdity on a colossal, Swiftian scale.
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterKirsten
"Every person engaged in the production of raw, untreated milk for human consumption shall hold a permit issued by the commissioner."

I wonder, what about lactating women? Are they going to need permits as well? I mean, a woman is a person, if she is lactating she in engaged in the production of raw milk for human consumption. Am I wrong?
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterHenwhisperer
La Leche League needs to hear about this!

If a consumer is defined as someone who purchases raw milk, can I set up a stand at a Farmers Market and give away samples? If so, sounds like I need to hurry up before this new law gets passed.
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterElizabeth McInerney
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2389048&title=Secret_Ingredient__A.html

http://www.theweekdaily.com/article/index/87090/3/3/How_salmonella_affects_consumers
"Researchers at Ontario’s University of Guelph are working on a vaccine for tomato plants that would prevent the growth of salmonella."

http://www.dogflu.ca/07112008/07/salmonella_cases_top_1000_in_us

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aB.phF0JL5lQ&refer=latin_america

Appears the ineptness(sp) continues. The safest is grow your own and buy from local trusted farmers.

Do you think TPTB will force a "microchip" on a lactating human?
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
I double-dog dare any lactating woman in New York to seek a permit for raw milk production. I'll be lactating soon, but I'm not in New York, so I'm out.

Amanda
July 11, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
Dang Amanda, I'd go for it if I could!
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Amanda/Sylvia,

Are you suggesting bottling and marketing human milk :-) Clearly there is a big difference between feeding ones baby versus raising livestock for production. Whether it is one cow or 10,000, wouldn't you agree that there is a responsibility to produce a safe and wholesome product as soon as you put a price tag on it? Surprisingly, I found out recently in some states you can't even "give away" certain food products without a license per a regulator that I asked about gifting a non-milk food product.

How well are these rules working? Would there be many more foodborne illnesses without these rules (rhetorical question)? Perhaps the regulators should go away, and let litigation resolve disputes about whether food sold (or given away) to consumers made them sick. Despite free choice, don't you think people who are sickened by a food product will continue to demand a "rule" to make the product safer, and/or a "ruling" to compensate them for damages?

C2
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterC2
In January 2006 the laws changed in Washington State to prohibit the sale or gift of milk/dairy from any “mammal”, raw or pasteurized, unless through a Grade A facility (RCW quoted below).

"Milk" means the lacteal secretion, practically free of colostrum, obtained by the complete milking of one or more healthy cows, goats, or other mammals.
"Sale" means selling, offering for sale, holding for sale, preparing for sale, distributing, dispensing, delivering, supplying, trading, bartering, offering a gift as an inducement for sale of, and advertising for sale in any media. RCW 15.36.012

So Dave Milano, tho' you assume you've escaped the system (as one would hope and expect), the law in WA, and soon in NY, reads that you cannot even milk and drink from your own animal without a permit. And tho' the law may not be pointing at lactating mothers, it clearly states that one cannot legally breastfeed their child without proper permits (including 3 sinks, quick chilling, monthly testing...). Perhaps this seems paranoid, but it is the letter of the law.
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterTo Every Season
C2 -- There is a responsibility. It would just make my week to read a story about a woman seeking a permit and coming against dumbfounded regulators. That would be *funny* (funny until it were actually required, of course).

WAPF makes a big point about how mother's milk also has pathogens. From that point of view, it's a double standard that mother's milk is not regulated like the milk of other mammals. I don't know about other producers of mother's milk, but I make a point of not sleeping in my own manure. It's part of my own personal HACCP plan.

Amanda
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
I should also add that when my son was a newborn and we were having breastfeeding problems, I offered him "a buck a suck." I am not sure how many dairy producers pay consumers to take their milk. This is likely an unusual circumstance. It turns out that babies are not motivated by money. I had to take another approach to fix the problem.
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterAmanda Rose
C2

Most raise their children to be productive people. Then release them in public. I feel there is a "responsibility to produce a safe" anything, and I believe that most people try to be safe in whatever they do. Unfortunately many aren't educated as well as they should be and then there are those who are in this world for themselves only. Yes indeed, in some states that little kid that wants to sell lemonade, has to get a "permit" first.

The current "rules"/laws are not working. There is an increase in foodborne illnesses.
Perhaps your suggestion is on the mark;"the regulators should go away", they are worthless as it stands. Why not allow litigation to resolve disputes about whether food sold (or given away) to consumers made them sick? That would certainly ensure a bigger safety measure from the producer/shippers, etc.

We supposedly have "free choice" now and I am not seeing any resolution with safer food products. I most certainly do NOT want my food irradiated, nor sprayed, nor injected, or cloned, or any of the other garbage they are forcing on foods.

What choice do I have to consume food my way? Or live in an area that is not sprayed with poison from the state? I am forced to drink water that is full of added chemicals. Chemicals that make me physically ill. I don't have "free choice".

At the stores; I've not seen any signs informing people that the produce is sprayed/washed in chemicals to "kill" pathogens. I was not informed that the tomatoes were put through any kind of chemical wash. There is no guarantee written anywhere that any of that produce is GM free, pesticide/herbicide free and they are allowed to sell it that way.

Obvisouly mixing tomatoes is not the only produce that it is done to. Why should anyone trust the govt or the stores/shipping facilities?

I'll take my chances with local Farmer Joe.

BTW, beware of continued recalls and unsafe products:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7499741.stm
The BBC says at least 2 people have died.

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_New_Salmonella_Victims_Reported_20237.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-recall12-2008jul12,0,3950739.story

July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia
Funny image for sure, Amanda. My understanding is that human milk should be free of pathogens, but contamination sometimes occurs. A couple examples of salmonella transmission with human milk as the vehicle:


1. First report of Salmonella enterica serotype panama meningitis associated with consumption of contaminated breast milk by a neonate.

Chen TL, Thien PF, Liaw SC, Fung CP, Siu LK.
J Clin Microbiol. 2005 Oct;43(10):5400-2.

Salmonella enterica serotype Panama is capable of causing severe infection in children and is often transmitted via contaminated food. Here, we present the first documented case of serotype Panama infection that was acquired through the consumption of contaminated breast milk. The mother excreted the organism asymptomatically for at least 2 weeks.


2. Transmission of lethal Salmonella senftenberg from mother's breast-milk to her baby.
Revathi G, Mahajan R, Faridi MM, Kumar A, Talwar V. Ann Trop Paediatr. 1995 Jun;15(2):159-61.


3. Mother's milk--unusual factor of infection transmission in a salmonellosis epidemic on a newborn ward.
Drhová A, Dobiásová V, Stefkovicová M. J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol. 1990;34(4):353-5.



This is an interesting debate too relating to mother-to-infant transmission of HIV via breast milk -

Breast milk pasteurisation in developed countries to reduce HIV transmission. Do the benefits outweigh the risks?
Giles M, Mijch A.Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Dec;13(4):237-40.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16338785

July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterC2
"In conclusion, we believe there is currently insufficient data to recommend this technique either as a safe alternative to formula feeding in resource-rich countries or as a method for providing intact immunological components of breast milk to the infant."

Are they saying there is insufficient data that states pasteurization affects the immunological components of breast milk? In other words; are they saying they don't have the data that would tell them whether or not pasteurization affects the immunological components of breast milk?

And the rest of the story......

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/6/1442

"Fraternal twins were delivered by cesarean section at 29 weeks’ gestation with birth weights of 680 g (male) and 685 g (female). On day 3 postpartum, the mother developed fever secondary to endometritis and was treated with ampicillin and gentamicin. On day 16 postdelivery the female twin developed lethargy and hemorrhagic enteritis." "The mother remained asymptomatic throughout the entire observation period."

I would bet the Ampicillin was given IV as the Gent, both very strong antibiotics. They would encourage the overgrowth of various flora in the gut. The mother remained asymptomatic so I would guess her immune system was doing a decent job keeping the overgrowth under control in her guts. Unfortunately the preemies immune system was facing a double wammy. Just think, if the mom got the antibiotics so did the infants. Also the mom worked at a dairy with infected cows. Also, if the mom developed infection, did she continue to breast feed? That may also be a factor.

http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/content/full/43/10/5400
July 12, 2008 | Unregistered CommenterSylvia

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.