David Lynch, president of the Raw Milk Association of Colorado, speaks to attendees at its annual meeting on Saturday. The stories of regulator and legislator resistance to food rights continue unabated.
The latest sad tale comes out of Wyoming, where a state Senate committee late last week tabled the proposed Food Freedom Act that had passed the House by a comfortable margin. The defeat occurred even after proponents reportedly agreed to remove raw milk and meat from inclusion among the foods that could be sold directly to consumers at farmers markets and roadside stands, exempt from licensing requirements.
Seems as if they feel they can’t trust small farms to operate outside the regulator grip of stiff licensing controls. Or else, the food lobby feels threatened by a loss of business. (And to the argument that regulators are trying to treat everyone equally, remember that small businesses have long received all sorts of exemptions from environmental and worker safety regulations, and preferences in obtaining U.S. government and state contracts.)
Of course, the regulators save their harshest wrath for producers of raw milk. WI Raw Milk Consumer says it well in a comment following my previous post regarding the ongoing crackdown on raw dairies in that state: “Should other farms be punished for the unproven transgression of one farm? If Chinese Restaurant A gets someone sick, does that mean that Chinese Restaurant B, C, D, and E should be shut down and forced to provide extensive documentation of their activities and practices as well?”
It seems difficult to conceive in the current ongoing harassment of raw dairy producers that there is a place where all is peaceful on the raw dairy front. Yet such is the case in Colorado.
I attended the annual meeting Saturday of the Raw Milk Association of Colorado, and also gave a talk that traced the state and federal crackdown on raw milk over the last four years across the U.S., and how it relates to proposed federal food safety legislation. Afterwards, a number of Colorado farmers and consumers came up to me and said they never realized the extent of government harassment that’s been going on around the country. “It’s a scary situation,” one attendee told me.
But in Colorado, legislation enacted four years ago that allows distribution of raw milk via herdshare arrangements seems to be working well. So well, in fact, that the association agreed at its meeting Saturday to push for two big adjustments in the existing law: broadening of the legislation to allow distribution of raw dairy products like yogurt, butter, and cream, in addition to milk; and to allow for direct delivery to herdshare members.
There has been one problem in the otherwise serene Colorado situation: an outbreak of campylobacter last spring that the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment tied to the raw dairy owned by Scott Freeman. He was very cooperative with the authorities, though he says now he disagrees with their conclusion that his dairy was the source of the campylobacter outbreak that, according to the agency, affected 81 individuals. While some were raw dairy drinkers, he now contends that there was a widespread outbreak of gastrointestinal illness in his area of Colorado around the same time, which included non-raw-milk drinkers, and which regulators didn’t investigate.
But that incident seems not to have slowed growth in raw milk demand in Colorado. Scott Freeman says his dairy lost nine of 160 herdshare owners in the days immediately following the campylobacter outbreak, but has since rebounded and now has 200 members. The Raw Milk Association of Colorado has similarly experienced significant growth: its membership has increased from just a few dairies to 54 over the last four years.
David Lynch, a raw dairy owner and the organization’s president, attributes the state’s success to self policing. RMAC oversees a set of standards that cover regular pathogen and other testing of milk, along with labeling.
“We’re non-confrontational here,” he told me. “We don’t want to be perceived as a radical organization.” As the organization says on its web site: “Producing the safe, raw milk that our members demand requires a rigorous discipline of cleanliness, proper handling of all milk and animal care focused on the long term health of our dairy animals.” RMAC monitors its members to ensure their compliance with specific procedures.
The RMAC’s success with self policing reinforces my sense that the self-policing concept could well be extended to other states. Get the ag and public health regulators out of the business of interfering with raw milk production, and let dairy owners organize their own oversight. We know that their agenda isn’t about safety, but about control. In the end, though, it will be up to legislators to become engaged via legislation that limits the regulators–the legislators are, in the final analysis, the regulators’ bosses.
***
Many thanks to Blair McMorran and her husband, Jim, for hosting me this past weekend for the RMAC meeting. I very much appreciated kindness, since they were in the midst of a major juggling act, preparing for the RMAC annual session (which was a big success).
?
Thanks for posting this. It was a real pleasure to meet you, and have you stay here!
If RMAC isn’t aware of what’s going on in other states, it’s because they’re not reading your blog – but then, that’s because they’re tending to their business…thank God. In two years of testing, we have not had one pathogen found.
It’s important that our consumers and producers understand what’s going on in other states because Colorado consumers have their milk every week so they’re pretty content. The issue here now is that the herdshare statute restricts raw dairies’ business, product development, distribution and growth. We’re going to need their help fixing that.
I must say, this "island of tranquility is also due to our state regulators. Paul Klug, Milk Program Manager at CDPHE, doesn’t trust raw milk, but he does like farmers, and he does not appear to have the control issues that some regulators have. All my correspondence with him has been respectful, helpful, and civil. Our producers say the same. We do not want to foster hostility or contempt.
The health department gave Scott Freeman a thorough media whipping, shut him down for weeks, crawled all over his property, told him to use bleach, clean up his website, install hot water, etc, and they decided that the campy outbreak was attributed to his dairy,writing an incriminating but inconclusive report. But they did not issue fines, confiscate equipment, or tie up his time in court.
We did not respond to their final report because we didn’t believe it would be constructive to do so. We did examine what we could have done better (like freezing 30 days of milk samples so we could provide them with a split sample to test – usually all the milk from a suspect batch is gone by the time the health dept shows up), and we made improvements in our standards. I’ll get those posted on our website this week.
Herdshares are legal here. David Lynch understood the legislative process and followed it, and the raw dairy business has taken off in Colorado. It takes a year to introduce legislation, and a lot of organizing. One needs to get all the stakeholders in the same room, write a bill that gets bi-partisan support, and ask consumers to write personal letters to their representatives at the right time. You don’t have to know all this up front, you simply need to take the first step. Call your representative and ask for help.
I agree with David Gumpert that good laws eliminate conflict. If we hadn’t legalized herdshares, we’d still be outraged, and probably would have driven a huge wedge between us and the health department. Now, we need to amend the original statute, which is much easier than getting a new bill passed. As long as we self-regulate, I think we’ll be fine.
-Blair
The CDPHE has also been willing to work with small produce growers. I operate a Neighborhood Supported Agriculture program, where we "farm" donated yards in the city and distribute the produce through a share program and at the farmers’ market. When I was setting up my program I had some regulatory questions for the CDPHE, and I was very pleased with their responses.
David — I am a *huge* fan and loved your book, and read your blog regularly. I couldn’t attend Saturday’s event due to a previous commitment, but I’m so happy you came to Colorado!
"…reliance on unreliable private lab pathogen tests…"
Without knowing a damn thing about the lab(s) you pronounce them unreliable. Why? Just because they aren’t government run? Neither is Underwriters Laboratories…or are they unreliable as well?
I suppose you DO think the government lab that said Thyalomide was safe in the 1950’s was safe…just because it was a government lab.
You’re an idiot.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
I applaud and congratulate the private sector success of the highly motivated and consumer connected mile high state of Colorado and RMAC.
I agree with the standards they have placed into their self compliance system.
The government regulators do not appreciate that when consumers and farmers conect directly that there different controls that take hold. These controls are not effective when farmers are disconnected from the consumer.
When a farm is directly responsible for a consumer like in CO with RMAC….the farmer does not screw up and takes complete responsibility for his standards, conduct and the consumer. Insurance and liability have real meaning.
When a farmer is disremoved from his consumer by a liability reduction machine ( the pastuerizer ) he gets removed from more than liability for his care free dirty milk….he gets screwed out of all of his money and the view into the eyes of his consumer.
it is a world of difference. I do not know of any raw milk dairymen that would ever want anything but the best quality and safety for his consumers. He wants good news and repeat buyers and word of mouth promotion.
The regulators need some retraining…they have been subject to the disconnected food chain for so long they do not even know what a connected food chain is.
Only one thing I would not do in the RMAC protocol. I would never hold samples for 30 days for anyone. It is like saving a bullet for your executioner. The regulators are not reasonable and will seize every piece of data to hang your farm, your family and your neck.
Test like crazy and follow the excellent standards at RMAC but I would not save anything. It will just come back to be evidence in a case against you. If you are going to save a sample…do not refrigerate it. Let the good bacteria work for you at least.
Remember….under the PMO…they never test one sample of pasteurized milk. We test tons of samples with raw milk. Our raw milk is on a different planet as far as safety is concerned.
With 80,000 deaths from Avandia ( FDA approved as safe ) since 1999 and 16,000 deaths a year from ANSAIDS ( another safe drug brought to you by the FDA )….it is matter of time before the FDA falls and Abu Ghraib Prison type trials begin. When the outrageous becomes the obscenely outrageous…there is a limit.
At least for the consciuos.
Mark McAfee
Ignore Lykke…she or he is a complete idiot and not worthy of communication.
We have far better things to do….
Lykke, if you cared about health or food safety you would be spending time trying to expose the tens of thousands of deaths each year caused directly by approved FDA drug pushing. Lykke tell me it is not so….it appears that you are just a common whore in the FDA whorehouse….it is immoral, criminal and makes me sick.
How can you wash it off at night. It is murder!!!
What do you not get about this?
Or are you upset that RMAC works so well??? That private standards and individual responsibility among adults is a good model???
Get over it. The GRASS roots are kicking butt and that is the way it is going to be in the future.
Mark
You make my point, exactly. Do what you do best, and we will do what we do best. May the best complete idiot "win."
I have to take issue with the "unreliable private lab" quote.
When I started testing milk back in 2000 I hired the lab who did all the food safety testing for Land O Lakes Foods.
Then to counter State lab testing for accuracy I used Siliker labs in Chicago for raw milk and now that I am in Ohio I use Q-labs which has every certification known to the testing industry.
I promote these labs as who one should go to in order to test raw milk to arrive at the accepted result given the stringent protocols they are required to follow.
I have never an will probably not ever suggest one set up thier own lab to to do thier own pathogen testing.
If we were to go down that road the very parmaitors we rely on for comparison would be lost and our understanding of our raw milk would not create the paper trail needed to prove what we feel to be true.
Tim Wightman
I still have not seen you reply to my indictment of the way that the so-called "food safety" people have handled raw milk here in WI. Clearly, they are not interested in improving the safety of raw milk, because if they really were they would create testing standards and help producers to make a safe product. But they have not done this, instead they have used legal threats and fear tactics, which have only driven it further underground into a black market, increasing the risks to consumers.
I agree that there is a need for regulation of raw milk, but it is not going to come from the so-called "food safety" establishment. They are too reactionary and have created an exceptionally hostile and uncooperative relationship with both raw milk producers and consumers.
You are fooling yourself if you really think any of this has to do with food safety. It is a protectionist racket for the big milk proceessors. The WI secretary of Agriculture and other members of the DATCP board have repeadetly said, whenever the raw milk issue comes up, that "we have to protect our $21 billion Wisconsin dairy industry", and that they are being pressured by the industry to not allow raw milk to be sold.
It is very sad that many people of your profession are so gullible as to believe you are protecting public health, when you are really just protecting big industry from competition. Do you not realize that this prohibitionist stance is actually placing consumers seeking alternatives at greater risk for foodborne illness?
I doubt you could find your ass with both hands and written instructions…
BH
I admire that you don’t follow Mark’s every word. He gave you sage advice to ignore Lykke. She actually lost her ass today and is off to find the directions back to it. I remember writing some notes on my goat’s butt about where to find my ass (or did I put them on one of the chickens)? Shame on you for being such a total ass when someone even tries to communicate (anonymously) with the raw milk movement, and discovers that TPTB were correct.
The private lab testing discussion is worthy of conversation, but not here.
Lykke-
Here in Wisconsin, both private labs and state labs were unable to find campylobacter in the milk from the offending farm which sparked the latest crackdown on raw milk. One of these tests included a sample of milk taken from one of the sickened households, which was sent both to the state lab and to the private lab.
The reason that the state claims it couldn’t find the pathogen in the milk was because it was old milk. The Walworth County Dept. of Public Health still has not released the official report about this outbreak, even though the outbreak took place in August. I suspect there is some funny bussiness. The results aren’t what they wanted them to be, so they won’t release the report.
What is it you have against private labs, that are certified and follow best practices? I’m genuinely curious.
Can you admit that the prohibitionist stance of the "food safety" types is placing raw milk consumers at higher risk in Wisconsin?
Your points are well taken, and need to be talked about. Sometimes a blog isn’t the best place for it.
I want to answer your questions, but in an atmosphere of being called "stupid," what can one say? Good luck and keep your raw milk safe. You and I hope we never meet.
I have had many meetings, both on site and on phone, and monthly emails with Microbial Research, Inc. – the lab that tests our milk. I have the utmost respect for owner Don Bade’s integrity and his professional opinion, and feel that his guidance and education have far exceeded our expectations of any other lab in the state.
He is the best partner we have ever had the luck to encounter.. He is the first to say that the tests we conduct are no guarantee of milk safety but over time, an excellent indication of process quality. And BTW, he would not ever drink raw milk. He just supports our right to choose, and he does everything in his power to help us be the best we can be.. Including free one on one phone consultations and report tools that trend results.
Beat that! Call him! He stands up admirably to his test protocols, and speaks knowledgeably about the weaknesses of other state lab protocols.
Besides, he understands customer service – a rare find.
I challenge you to find a comparable lab. I’m extremely proud of Microbial Research, Inc!!
-Blair
Fact is some of us saw through then, the evil casting of a raw milk dairy as culprit for a population wide ‘outbreak’. That non raw milk drinkers got sick from raw milk doesn’t happen, and that the health department saw the need to wage a misinformation campaign, trashing a raw milk farmer and the product is wrong. It’s a lie, and it creates distrust and further widens the gap between regulators and the decent folks working hard to make a real living. It’s really too bad that those in Co didn’t have the guts to actually publicize the truth…and clear the name and reputation of an innocent farmer….but there is something to be said about not tipping the applecart. It’s sad when the authorities create an environment of fear rather than respect.
No surprise that the new food freedom law was tabled…I think you’ll find that most efforts in this vain will be shot down by political pressure (behind the scenes political pressure)..and I’m sure you will see the ‘food safety’ freaks use these opportunities to lie to the public some more. That there is no outrage in Colorado is nice for them, for most other places though, outrage is the only real avenue we have for victory.
No one is requiring you to acknowledge or respond to the insults. Why can’t you talk about what is wrong with private labs here?
Since you are posting anonymously, Lykke, there doesn’t seem to be any reason you can’t answer reasonable questions about a direct assertion you yourself have made, yet you do it again and again. It’s just intellectual laziness.
first, ohio raw milk farmers for the last few years have been collecting their own samples, sending them to certified labs, and compiling a safety record documented by stellar test results. we hope to soon have a data base that demonstrates the safety and superiority of raw milk produced under rigorous operational standards. yes, there is a difference between milk intended for pasteurization and milk intended for consumption.
second, the issue of the validity of a laboratory’s test results is something the legal defense fund has had its eye on for quite some time. how fortuitous that this is becoming an issue. pictures at 11.
"He is the first to say that the tests we conduct are no guarantee of milk safety but over time, an excellent indication of process quality."
What I don’t agree with is "lab shopping" to find a negative test after you’ve received a positive result. That is what PCA did and they killed 9 people. It is also inappropriate to use private lab tests to "vindicate" a dairy or any other industry during an outbreak investigation. There should be no problem doing duplicate testing with split samples by both the regulatory agency and the industry’s private lab, but those test results cannot be directly compared if the two labs using different methods. The results from both labs should be used to try to determine where the safety process broke down.
Regarding the validity of lab tests. That is exactly what regulatory laboratories prepare for: chain of custody, numerous QA/QC protocols, certifications, etc. It is assumed that any lab test result has to stand up in a court if regulatory action is taken. The disadvantage of the rigorous regulatory protocols is that they are slow to act when new technology hits. For example, IMHO many research labs have better technology for isolating pathogens from raw milk than the regulatory labs…I think you’d see a lot more positive pathogen tests if the most modern protocols were applied to raw milk vs. some of the outdated, older but validated regulatory methods.
How many private private laboratories operate under the same rigorous standards with chain of custody, etc.? It’s not really their purpose if the tests are for monitoring for food safety and quality (in other words, checking that the process is working, not guaranteeing that each raw milk batch is free of pathogens). Would you agree too that the least valid test of all would be the one from a farmer doing an on-farm quick test not even developed or validated by the manufacturer for use in raw milk.
Sincerely yours,
Lazy, stupid, and whatever name comes next foil
It seems our regulator types are so paranoid about the possible maybe perhaps so called "risk" of raw milk to those they serve they don’t give one damn about about all the human waste laden "foods" being imported from Red China.
The food regulators have utterly failed just as badly as the monetary regulators have utterly failed.
The imported food from Red China we can do without but the imported money from Red China we CAN NOT do without. Maybe we need to read the regulators job descriptions perhaps they are just FOLLOWING ORDERS ???? 4 minute news video link.
http://www.eyeweekly.com/food/article/84438–the-war-on-farms
lab tests are like statistics. you can use them to demonstrate whatever it is you want to prove.
Once you understand that bacteria adjust very quickly to new environments,all you have to do is suppress the bacteria that you don’t want with the proper anti bacterial ,ph or salinity,etc. and provide the nutrients that your target bacteria strain prefers.Chances are you will find what you are looking for,not because it was there in the original sample but because one of its relatives has changed to fit the new environment.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747772/
"Among natural isolates of E. coli, 40% had at least a 10-fold increase in mutant frequency, and 13% had at least a 100-fold increase in mutant frequency, when they were incubated on agar plates for 7 days (Bjedov et al., 2003)."
"How many private private laboratories operate under the same rigorous standards with chain of custody, etc.?"
What, you don’t know, or can’t find out? Don’t you have the purview and wherewithal?
Poor, poor thing. You had to make some answer for another of your arrogant assertions.
Thanks for getting out of your rut for a change.
As far as private lab testing is concerned…it is critical to a farm safety program.
Who does the daily and weekly testing between the monthly testing intervals done by the state regulators ???
It is the private lab!!
Yes it is the private lab that allows the gathering of surveilance data so that standards can be maintained and passed regularly. If only the state does the testing the farm will be constantly met with surprizes. Not a good or smart thing. Monthly state tests are not frequent enough to catch trends and avoid failures.
Private labs have no political alliances…they just to the test and report the results. The state labs can have all kinds of issues with politics. Big dairy and University PhD ( executive branch cavorting with Corp interests ) interests can get involved. This happened with Alta Dena years ago.
State inspected private labs are the back bone of our raw milk safety program at OPDC and we have zero control over outcomes. They just report the findings …..as it should be.
We have 25 x more data from our private lab tests than we do CDFA testing. As a result we seldom have surprises and raw milk is on the shelves 100% of the time.
Leave the state certified private labs alone….they are very good and badly needed.
Lykke….ask your self this question….why is it that the states never ever test pathogens in pasteurized milk??? wwe all know that bugs get past the milk killer…but the FDA refuses to test pasteurized milk for pathogens. The FDA is smart like a fox…they know that if they do not test they will not find….!
Remember that pasteurization is just a certified reduction of five logs in very dirty milk ( at least sometimes it is filthy ) and not a certainty of zero pathogens. In fact the FDA admits that listeria may in fact be found in pasteurized milk but just at very reduced levels….at least five logs reduced. "Got Dead Milk?" may not be so dead after all…perhaps it is more like "Got Deadly Milk?". The truth really sucks and hurts when the poor dairymen is so disconnected that he has no idea what is going on at the creamery plant or the consumers in the markets.
Raw milk must be zero pathogens always.
Mark McAfee
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-03-food-borne-illness_N.htm
There are 76,000,000 food related illnesses yearly and 350,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths! At a cost of $152 billion dollars every year!
Another article stated the CDC claims that there are 70 [out of the total 76,000,000 illnesses] raw milk related illnesses yearly.
And they would have us believe we are playing Russian Roulette by consuming raw milk.
Watch the mother in the 1.5 minute video relate her young sons bout salmonella in which she claims the company that produced the contaiminated food was aware of the problem.
After visiting with David Gumpert at our RMAC meeting and seeing some of the comments here, it seems appropriate to post more info about our campy incident and try to draw closure to it. We have the final health department report and one share holders HD interview results and their questionare. I would like to post this info on my website along with some dialog of my own. This is where the request for help comes in. I have spent more time than I have available trying to find the CDC statistics on dairy illnesses.
The data Id like to have is the percent of total food borne illnesses (for whatever time frame it might be available) attributed to raw dairy. I have seen this figure somewhere, but cannot find it now. It was something like out of all food borne illnesses raw dairy is about 5%. This may have been all dairy, in which case Id also like a break down between raw and pasteurized, but just dairy would probably be enough.
Don, could you please give us the link to the other article that talks about the 70 illnesses per year attributed to raw milk.
Thanks
Scott Freeman
Kinikin Corner Dairy
Foodborne disease surveillance statistics are a moving target due to the variability in reporting from state-to-state and other factors. This report compares raw and pasteurized dairy outbreaks, and separates them from queso fresco cheeses.
http://www.foodpoisonjournal.com/uploads/file/Comparing%20Food%20Safety%20Record_Revised(1)(1).pdf
Here is the link to the other article Scott.
There is something very very special about raw dairy! The risk of becoming ill from raw dairy becomes nonexistant when compared to certainly becoming ill from the SAD via the inserted poisons and bacteria and the greatly diminished food value. I know for I suffered much for 68 years before rejecting it.
What is so special about raw dairy IMHO it alone exposes the whole foul corrupt factory fake phood system and the so called health care system thus the war against the king of all foods!!!
Look at history, specifically pre-WWII Germany. The Jewish community was not the first group Hitler went after. They lived on "an island of tranquility" while all who would/could help them were decimated, one by one, for want of help from those left alone…at first.
Then, when all who would have helped were gone, Hitler came for the Jews…and there was no one left to help.
Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
BH
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
The fact that this health department has acted in such a way can have a chilling effect on the efforts to raise the standards of raw milk in Colorado. There cannot be any trust, if those that have the authority, abuse the power that they are granted…and ignoring a possible population wide outbreak, with the sole intent to vilify raw milk and those that produce it, does not serve the public good (but it darn sure helps those that boil and peddle the worthless white stuff, and those that create the CAFO menace)
I wonder Blair, what redress the RMAC has with this report, and with the health department in general. Has their been discussions about the total mishandling of the samples? If they are going to pass judgment they should be darn certain (with positive test results). I’m sure Scott would be willing to sacrifice a bit of ‘cred’ if his public humiliation can result in better testing protocols…after all it might help the next guy the get in their sights. Is the health department approachable? (it would even be worth not mentioning the obvious weakness of the cohort study…or the unlikelyhood that three different batches all were campy positive..if they would agree to establish clear and equitable testing procedures) If they really don’t have an agenda, and are really about protecting the public health, after this debacle, they should be open for improvement.
Lykke, the presence of a sink does not preclude one from creating good whole milk. I don’t have one in my barn…and no raw milk farmer worth his salt ‘sanitizes’ anything…especially with bleach. When you recognize that microbes are not the enemy, and that man enjoys his illusion of being able to control nature, a good cleaning will suffice.
Scott, like so many other farmers, got the shaft here..and I think there is a strong possibility that there is a concerted, planned effort to ‘increase’ raw milk outbreaks…with the reality that raw milk is the cornerstone to a healthy diet getting out, those that have a stake in the status quo need some ‘data’ to support their lies. The agenda is there, in black and white…