When I try to make sense out of what is happening to Estrella Family Creamery and Morningland Dairy, about all I can conclude is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is on a vendetta to eliminate anyone involved in the raw dairy business. In the case of Estrella and Morningland, the FDA is seeking to drive out of business not just a couple of cheesemakers, but a couple of cheesemakers focused on producing the highest quality product possible.
Sometimes I think that everyone involved in raw dairy and selling to the general public should have a “go-private” option, as in a buying club, a CSA, a herd share, or some variation on the theme…with the understanding that even the seemingly fail-safe private option is under tremendous pressure.
A case in point is Brigitte Ruthman, the Massachusetts raw dairy operator who was served with a cease-and-desist order last spring for having a one-cow herdshare, discovered on Friday. She had set up the herdshare after being advised by an inspector for the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources that coming into compliance for a state raw-milk permit could run into the tens of thousands of dollars.
She decided after receiving the cease-and-desist to seek to negotiate with the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. In a seeming show of good faith, MDAR lifted the cease and desist during the summer, but warned Ruthman not to distribute milk to her shareholders.
She had her negotiating session Friday, and realized just a few minutes into the two-hour-plus session with five MDAR representatives, including Nathan L’Etoile, the second in command to Commissioner Scott Soares, that her decision to try to be reasonable was a big mistake.
“They interpret their regulations – which prohibit selling raw milk to the public without registration – to encompass cow-share agreements because the buyers are receiving milk,” she recounted. She said they suggested she could possibly come into compliance with raw-milk registration requirements by obtaining federal or other grants, and thereby do the upgrades necessary, but couldn’t guarantee she’d receive any grants, or give an estimate on what upgrades might cost.
Remember, we’re talking about milk from a single cow–maybe $30 a day in boarding fees. It would take a long time at that rate to pay off tens of thousands in questionable upgrades. Besides, this is a herdshare, a private ownership arrangement.
“I must have said five times, ‘You have no jurisdiction here,'” Ruthman recalls. That notion didn’t go over well with the MDAR.
She says the MDAR reps threatened her that if she resumes the herdshare, MDAR may well come after her as an unauthorized “milk dealer,” which has even more stringent requirements than a raw milk permit.
She decided, though, that she needs to act on her argument that the state has no jurisdiction over her private arrangement. “I am not in any conundrum,” she says.
She also says that she inquired about what’s happened to some numbers of other herdshares in the state she’s aware of that have been served with cease-and-desist orders, and the MDAR officials indicated they had ceased operations. Not so, Ruthman told them; indeed, there are additional ones that have sprung up in the interim.
What makes the Massachusetts situation especially perplexing is that its governor, Deval Patrick, is known to be a raw milk drinker, obtaining his milk from a farm in the Berkshires not far from Ruthman’s. How much does the guv, known to be close friends with President Obama, know about his underlings’ obsessive campaign against Ruthman and various herdshares and buying clubs? Hard to know.
He’s up for re-election on Tuesday, in a tight race, but the odds-on favorite to win. Ironically, he may find ever more sources for raw milk in his state, as herdshares continue breaking out all over.
Only sell to security cleared dear friends and denial of anything official
Mark
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
"Federal officials agreed to the companys request that the ammonia be classified as a processing agent and not an ingredient that would be listed on labels."
How dare the feds mislead the public. Once again proves that the govt panders to big business… When crap like this continuously occurs, why should people have any trust in the govt?
I had read that many of the boomers are moving to hobby/farmettes and producing home grown foods for sale. I didn't save the story, it had implied that in some states it was expensive for the small farmer to sell his/her produce at a farmers markets. They are required to jump through unrealistic hoops for licensing, etc. It doesn't appear to be "just" raw milk that is being attacked. Though I think raw dairy is horribly singled out more so than any other food item.
It is just not worth screwing arround with inspectors and building a grade a operation
You can spend your time feeding people or fighting the system
Your choice
Mark
Too clever. Happy Halloween!
Just a hint for this week!! Sworn to secrecy??!!
It is gonna be good and its gonna be big!!
Happy Halloween.
Mark
On my part, that wasn't meant to be a dig against you so much as an acknowledgement of the "size" debate that comes up here periodically. As far as food safety goes, there doesn't seem to be much difference. In fact, in 2010 most of the dairies with problems were relatively small. The listeria outbreak and deaths a few years ago from pasteurized milk also involved a relatively small dairy that distributed locally.
http://www.marlerblog.com/case-news/outbreaks-illnesses-and-recalls-linked-to-raw-unpasteurized-and-pasteurized-dairy-products-united-st-1/
In my opinion…."conditions" matter more than size, but when "size effects conditions"
CAFO Concentration and numbers per acre then size matters for sure.
What matters most are "conditions and care of those animals and conditions" regardless of size.
Mark
David
One could easily imagine other meanings for this…