Let's Give a Round of Applause to MDAR for a Wonderful "Teachable Moment," and Show What Good Students We Are
Sunday, May 9, 2010 at 10:37AM 
I guess I'm feeling a lot of gratitude these days. Last week, I was thanking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for clarifying its position on food and health rights (that we have none). Today, I want to express thanks to the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources.
After reading the comments following my previous post, I've come to realize MDAR, with its 5 p.m. Friday press release, provided us with an important "teachable moment." What can we learn?
Most important, we learned, once again, that the opposition to the Food Right movement whether MDAR, MDPH, NY Ag & Markets, WI DATCP, FDA, is playing hard ball. If you don't know what I mean by hard ball, read, or re-read, "The Prince" by Machiavelli.
Guys like Scott Soares are good players, because they have plenty of practice. They play among themselves, and with other agencies, every day. Fighting for budgets, authority, new rules, old rules, and so forth. The people who make it to the top of their bureaucracies are the ones who play best, have the sharpest elbows, as it were.
We ordinary people generally have little practice in bureaucratic in-fighting. So when MDAR puts out a press release at 5 p.m. on Friday evening preceding a major confrontation with the opposition (us Food Rights people), you know that it's about more than informing the public.
This MDAR press release was about two things: sowing confusion and divide-and-conquer. Little League stuff by bureaucratic standards.
But for people who don't play regularly, it can be like the hidden-ball trick. You get fooled...at first.
A few people in the Food Rights movement were initially fooled. They thought they had won a victory of some sort. But they have begun to understand what's really going on, that the people in charge are totally cynical. Moreover, this is a very serious business to them. It's about the core of their existence: power and control.
The important point is that those of us fighting for the right to access the foods of our choice--in the current case, raw milk--learned at least two important lessons.
1. The importance of unity. There's no such thing as striking a separate deal with people like Scott Soares and MDAR. It's a losing proposition, as these people never honor their word in the long run. Moreover, they see the willingness to strike separate deals as a sign of weaknessj, as an invitation to push for more. In the Massachusetts situation, that could mean laying off the buying clubs for a short time, before closing in more harshly than ever, and adding in additional obstacles, like new requirements for buildings, equipment, and testing by raw dairies.
2. The importance of being firm and insistent. Just because MDAR says we can't testify about MDAR's commitment to putting the buying clubs out of business (as was originally ordained) doesn't mean it is so. As Gary Cox points out in his comment following my previous post, there is something in our legal system known as "due process," and MDAR conveniently ignored that. They can't, after putting out a notice of a hearing, simply opt out of the major part of it with literally no notice.
Now, because the bureaucrats we are fighting are professionals, we must expect them to have some more tricks up their sleeve when people assemble tomorrow (Monday) for a rally (8:30 a.m. Boston Common) and for the hearing (10 a.m. 100 Cambridge St.). That's why it's important that lots of us show up, and send them a message: We are quick learners.
The Complete Patient
I'll be tweeting from the events Monday in Boston. You can sign up by clicking on the Twitter link, underneath the picture of my book cover, on the left-hand side of this home page.
Reader Comments (37)
Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles
We are dealing with hardened, Machiavellian, corporate bureaucrats. This is as true here in WI as it is in MA, and will be in any other state with powerful agribusiness interests. The only way to keep them in check is with strong grassroots organizing, and many vocal and active consumers to defend our rights and our local family farmers.
Just look at the way that the USDA handled the Organic Certification program. When they first set it up, GMOs were allowed, but because of broad consumer protest this quickly changed. Granted, the organic label has since been eroded by large "organic" factory farms, but consumers are also becoming keen to this, and is why they are now looking to connect directly to farmers by getting raw milk.
I fear that once we win this battle for raw milk rights, our next obstacle is going to be dealing with fake "raw" milk -- milk which has been thermally treated below legal pasteurization temperatures. Many so-called "raw milk cheeses" are already made this way. The milk processor will heat-treat commingled milk from many farms, at anywhere from 145F to 160F for 15 seconds (legal pasteurization is 161F for 15 secs.) and call it a "raw milk cheese."
This is of course ludicrous. Legally they can't call it pasteurized, but they are not obligated to call it raw (they are required to say it is aged over 60 days, and they can also call it "non-pasteurized" if they want).
In Europe, the definition of a raw milk cheese is a cheese made from milk that has not been heated above the body temperature of the animal (considered to be 105F) prior to the coagulation of the milk and formation of the curd. Why, in the U.S., do we tolerate these faux raw-milk cheeses?
In France, when Lactalis (a major milk processor) proposed changing the AOC protection for Camembert de Normandy to allow for heat treatment of the milk (it is a traditional raw milk cheese) consumers boycotted Lactalis until they changed their tone.
We ought to start raising awareness of this issue now, so when the imitation "raw milk" starts showing up on grocery store shelves, consumer will know better and demand the real thing.
It is already happening. In fact, many of our dairy industry big-wigs and "food safety" regulator types here in America's Dairyland ARDENTLY defend the practice of calling cheeses made from heat-treated milk a "raw milk cheese."
You seem to fail to comprehend just how deep the roots of corruption and corporate money run in this raw milk issue.
A technical question...are there sensory (e.g., taste, texture) differences between non-homogenized raw milk and non-homogenized lightly heat-treated milk or cheeses? Would a consumer taste/feel/smell any difference, or would you need lab tests to differentiate?
Concerning "mild pasteurization," "faux pasteurization," etc. Isn't anyone worried about almost, but not quite, killing some pathogens in CAFO milk that NEEDS pasteurization? Sounds to me like a formula for a really nasty outbreak, with the hardier bad guys getting a foothold as their weaker brethren are killed off. What's different in this physical process (e.g., almost but not completely pasteurizing) from the chronic overuse of low (non-therapeutic) levels of antibiotics thereby culturing superbugs? It seems like a formula for more problems, but in this case, it would be blamed on "raw" milk or "raw" milk products.
I can smell the difference between raw milk and pastuerized milk coming out of the pastuerization pipeline. The lactose has been carmelized and has a distinctive carmelized aroma. The casien is also partially denatured -- the calcium phosphate (critical to the formation of the curd) becomes less bio-available, which weakens its ability to coagulate, thus the need to add calcium chloride to milk which has been pastuerized or heat treated and is going to be turned into cheese.
These thing happen to a lesser degree (obviously) the lower the temperature you heat-treat, but they are still evident to me on a sensory level.
REAL raw milk cheese is from milk which has not been heated to above 105F prior to the formation of the curd. Don't tell this to the guys at DATCP, or any variety of large corporate milk processors in WI, though. Its all the same to them. Some of them (not naming names here...) literally set their pastuerizer to 159F, and call this "raw milk cheese."
So what does this have to do with raw milk? You can raise perfectly healthy children without taking the risk of consuming raw milk. That doesn’t mean I’m trying to take away someone’s right to choose to give their family raw milk. I’m just a voice with a different message. Health is not defined by raw milk consumption alone. It appears that most that blog here seem to be members of the WAPF, so there is a bias. Everyone parrots the WAPF raw milk dogma and they get nasty when challenged. I just find it so odd that one can get so emotional over a single food source.
So, round and round we go about the right to have access to raw milk. I live in California. Access is not an issue. The issue in our state is wondering if one of the two raw milk producers continues to outsource his raw milk products (butter, cheese, and colostrum) and that this unethical practice may have led to an E.coli 0157:H7 outbreak. So safety and truth in advertizing is my focus, not the right to have access.
You may all be annoyed at Lykke’s and cp’s voices, but I think some good has come from it. Mark McAfee changed some language on his website about pathogens and I also think people within the movement put pressure on him to change his outsourcing practices. Now has he done this, who really knows? This is the problem with “know your farmer”. The consumer can never really know everything that occurs on the farm?
I hope as we continue to interact, more focus can be placed on raw milk safety. I think 29 states have some form of access to raw milk. For the states that have legal access, the focus shifts from access to safety, especially considering there continue to be raw milk outbreaks. If raw milk is going to be legal, it needs to be produced as safe as humanly possible. I think everyone can agree on this one fact.
cp
If raw milk is ever heated this is an invitation to disatster. There is no faking or fooling mother nature. You must work with her or face the forces of nature.
The partially pasteurized or thermalized raw milk will show up as fake raw milk. The consumer will have lactose intolerance and allergies to fake partially dead raw milk. When biodoversity is challenged that is when listeria and other bad actors enter the play!! In between pasteurized milk and real raw milk is raw fake milk and this is danger zone milk...do not go there.
A farmer that would ever attempt such a stupid and short sighted fake raw milk stunt.... would risk loss of his farm from lawsuits ( thank you Bill ) from sick people and misbranding. He would never sell another jug of raw milk again....good ridance!!. To lie to a consumer and to lie to mother nature are not things that a raw milk farmer would ever do...it shows a complete lack of understanding of biology and raw milk safety not to mention marketing and brand integrity.
The regulators would not take kindly to this either. Remember that it is illegal to commingle raw fluid milk from many dairies and bottle it as raw. CAFO milk must be pasteurized becuase it contains the wrong bacteria. A raw milk dairy must always be treansparent and offer tours. If a consumer ever saw a heating vat for the raw milk.....how would that ever be explained. Real raw milk is chilled immediately and bottled thereafter....no heat involved. Our research data says that raw milk consumers have a high level of education...they are not stupid!!
A raw milk brand is based on personal responsibility and reputation. Fly-by-night fake raw milk would succum to its own fake reality.... pretty darn quick with very unfortunate consequences Consumers and regulators would both taste and smell this rat. Raw milk does not reach the consumer with out intensive scrutiny and consumer demanded transparency.
One thing that can not be faked is raw milk. You either work with mother nature or she kicks your butt and so does Bill Marler. Fake raw milk is not raw milk.
It is bioterrorism by a CAFO.
Mark
On the flight in from CA a fellow passenger stopped me and asked about raw milk because I was wearing my Get Raw Milk shirt. She is a Vermont raw milk dairymen startup venture. She knew all about me having researched everything about Weston A Price and even my Mobile Milk Barn.
She is coming to the Raw Milk Rally tomorrow morning to drink raw milk and participate in the nutritional political fireworks.
Mark
"It appears that most that blog here seem to be members of the WAPF, so there is a bias. Everyone parrots the WAPF raw milk dogma..."
While I am involved with the FTCLDF, having been a raw milk producer needing affordable legal advice because of the likes of Marler, the FDA, USDA, and my own states Dept of AG, I am not a WAPF member, nor have you ever heard me spout their dogma. cp, generalizations only make you look silly.
To the folks in MA...I was really looking forward to meeting many of you I have corresponded with, but the TSA seems to have other ideas. It seems my name has made a no-fly list. I just got hom from the airport after figuring out there was not time to fix the SNAFU and still get to Boston in time for the meeting.
Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
The goal is to have raw milk and raw milk products available in every state and every store to feed and nourish everyone who wants it. That especially includes children.
Nonsense! I've been drinking raw milk passionately for 14 years (I'd rather go without milk than drink commercial crap) and actively producing it myself and other people for 12. I never even heard of WAPF until five years ago; while I appreciate what they do for the raw milk arena, I would not call myself a WAPF member... I certainly don't agree with their stance on grains, for example.
As for children, I have willingly sold my raw goat milk to many parents with children, including a number of babies who could not tolerate anything else, including breast milk, formulas and store milk. Should I have let those babies starve or otherwise not thrive by refusing to sell them raw milk????
By the way, children CAN tell the difference between milks. Some of my customers' children refuse to drink milk if it's not raw; others actually get stomach upsets if they drink STORE milk... that should tell you something right there.
It sure tells ME, and all other raw milkers, something....
Wildly inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims...hmmm...cp, isn't that what you accuse our side of? Ever heard of glass houses? How about pots and the color black?
How about hypocrites...a lower life form.
Bob "BubbaBozo" Hayles
http://www.JuicyMaters.com
Do you think it is unethical to feed raw dairy to another person's child without their permission?
Do you think it is unethical to feed another person's child factory produced food, chemically laced cold cuts, pesticide treated gmo produce (or anything for that matter) without their permission?
How about this poison that you regulators seem to love:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html
You should probably get a written waiver.
What is your answer to the raw milk question? I think SteveBemis addresses this in his 11 GTs. Would you feed raw dairy to someone else's child without asking the parents first?
You did not answer my question. Would you get parent's permission to feed their children the toxic foods I mentioned above including http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/31/us/31meat.html
There is only a yes or no answer to this question. Don't be mealy mouthed about it
No. Your turn - will you answer my question, also a yes or no would be sufficient.