Raw milk bill makes sense in the Great State of Vermont

[Guest guest]

I have always loved milk, so this week's anticipated hearings for the Farm Fresh Milk Restoration Act has my attention (H.616 Wednesday and Thursday). This bill would allow farmers to sell above the 25 quart per day limit and advertise the availability of their good, wholesome raw milk. The details of this bill are available on Rural Vermont's Web site (ruralvermont.org).The FDA has been quoted, from their Web site, that drinking raw milk is "like playing Russian roulette with your health." This seems like an ironic statement from the agency that has allowed genetically modified foods, irradiation, and cloned meats into our food chain (yes, right in your local market). Our own government "overseers" have long been playing "Russian roulette" with the population's health. With no labeling, we are not even allowed choice.To me, this is what H.616 is about: choice.People ought to have the choice to drink whatever kind of milk they want and farmers ought to be able to sell and advertise raw milk without fear of penalization. I am almost 48 years old and have been milking cows and goats and drinking raw milk for near 30 years. I practically lived off of raw milk through both my pregnancies — birthing at home lovely, strong children. My hay crews know I am a real taskmaster — that's because I drink my "Popeye's Spinach" — raw milk. So give Rural Vermont a call, 223-7222, or get on the Web site and find out how you can help support milk choice, local food, small farms, and the great state of Vermont.Sloan ArmstrongWalden

[Guest guest]

It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the coliform <10

cfu/ml

requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

[Guest guest]

It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the coliform <10

cfu/ml

requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

[Guest guest]

It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the coliform <10

cfu/ml

requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

[Guest guest]

The raw milk bill in Vermont has a <10 cfu/ml stipulation? This IS

the same fight California is in right now. If the Vermont bill has

this coliform limit, I'd be very suspect that the bill is designed

to 'look friendly' toward raw milk, but in reality, is designed to

kill raw milk altogether with this random, unnecessary, and

unattainable standard.

Cheryl

> It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the

coliform <10 cfu/ml

> requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

>

[Guest guest]

The raw milk bill in Vermont has a <10 cfu/ml stipulation? This IS

the same fight California is in right now. If the Vermont bill has

this coliform limit, I'd be very suspect that the bill is designed

to 'look friendly' toward raw milk, but in reality, is designed to

kill raw milk altogether with this random, unnecessary, and

unattainable standard.

Cheryl

> It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the

coliform <10 cfu/ml

> requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

>

[Guest guest]

The raw milk bill in Vermont has a <10 cfu/ml stipulation? This IS

the same fight California is in right now. If the Vermont bill has

this coliform limit, I'd be very suspect that the bill is designed

to 'look friendly' toward raw milk, but in reality, is designed to

kill raw milk altogether with this random, unnecessary, and

unattainable standard.

Cheryl

> It does appear to offer a step forward, but I wonder about the

coliform <10 cfu/ml

> requirement. Is that not what OP is fighting in california right now?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi there! Just thought I should clarify some things about the Raw Milk

bill in Vermont. I am an intern with Rural Vermont, the farm advocacy

group that wrote the bill.

First of all, this is DEFINITELY legit. A lot of work has gone into

this piece of legislation, and it is in no way " designed to kill raw

milk altogether " . Our organization surveyed about 160 dairy farmers.

Then, a group of family farmers discussed what they saw as necessary

in a bill that would ensure farmer's rights and the production of a

safe product. We consulted lawyers and legislators and finally came

out with the finished bill. This process took many months. There is

not a single part of the bill that hasn't been carefully analyzed.

Secondly, the bill does state that total coliform count must be below

10 cfu/ml. I do not know what is going on in California, and am not a

microbiologist, so I don't know the specifics on coliforms. I DO know

that Millicent , a dairy farmer who IS a microbiologist has

been instrumental in the writing of the bill. She runs a bacterial

testing company, found at http://dairybacterialtesting.com/default.aspx

So please, don't doubt the intentions behind this great bill. We are

facing an uphill battle and need all of the support that we can get.

There were hearings for testimonies on the bill three days this week,

and the house of representatives should vote next week. It's a great

bill that I have worked hard to help pass.

Thanks for hearing me out!

ps feel free to email me with questions.

>

> The raw milk bill in Vermont has a <10 cfu/ml stipulation? This IS

> the same fight California is in right now. If the Vermont bill has

> this coliform limit, I'd be very suspect that the bill is designed

> to 'look friendly' toward raw milk, but in reality, is designed to

> kill raw milk altogether with this random, unnecessary, and

> unattainable standard.

>

> Cheryl

[Guest guest]

Hi there! Just thought I should clarify some things about the Raw Milk

bill in Vermont. I am an intern with Rural Vermont, the farm advocacy

group that wrote the bill.

First of all, this is DEFINITELY legit. A lot of work has gone into

this piece of legislation, and it is in no way " designed to kill raw

milk altogether " . Our organization surveyed about 160 dairy farmers.

Then, a group of family farmers discussed what they saw as necessary

in a bill that would ensure farmer's rights and the production of a

safe product. We consulted lawyers and legislators and finally came

out with the finished bill. This process took many months. There is

not a single part of the bill that hasn't been carefully analyzed.

Secondly, the bill does state that total coliform count must be below

10 cfu/ml. I do not know what is going on in California, and am not a

microbiologist, so I don't know the specifics on coliforms. I DO know

that Millicent , a dairy farmer who IS a microbiologist has

been instrumental in the writing of the bill. She runs a bacterial

testing company, found at http://dairybacterialtesting.com/default.aspx

So please, don't doubt the intentions behind this great bill. We are

facing an uphill battle and need all of the support that we can get.

There were hearings for testimonies on the bill three days this week,

and the house of representatives should vote next week. It's a great

bill that I have worked hard to help pass.

Thanks for hearing me out!

ps feel free to email me with questions.

>

> The raw milk bill in Vermont has a <10 cfu/ml stipulation? This IS

> the same fight California is in right now. If the Vermont bill has

> this coliform limit, I'd be very suspect that the bill is designed

> to 'look friendly' toward raw milk, but in reality, is designed to

> kill raw milk altogether with this random, unnecessary, and

> unattainable standard.

>

> Cheryl

[Guest guest]

are you a consumer of Raw Milk?

a

>>I am an intern with Rural Vermont, the farm advocacy>>group that wrote the bill.

[Guest guest]

are you a consumer of Raw Milk?

a

>>I am an intern with Rural Vermont, the farm advocacy>>group that wrote the bill.

[Guest guest]

are you a consumer of Raw Milk?

a

>>I am an intern with Rural Vermont, the farm advocacy>>group that wrote the bill.

[Guest guest]

,

One more thing...

Ms. , as a microbiologist, would know that coliforms mean

Colony Forming Bacteria, and this designation does not specify if the

bacteria is friendly or pathogenic. The coliform count is arbitrary.

Then why would she set the coliform limit so low? (Raw milk if full

of friendly bacteria, and as I understand it, a high coliform count

could indicate a high number of friendly bacteria, which is definitely

a good thing.)

Why would she set the coliform limit so low? Find out why, as people

operate with hidden agendas all the time.

Cheryl

[Guest guest]

,

One more thing...

Ms. , as a microbiologist, would know that coliforms mean

Colony Forming Bacteria, and this designation does not specify if the

bacteria is friendly or pathogenic. The coliform count is arbitrary.

Then why would she set the coliform limit so low? (Raw milk if full

of friendly bacteria, and as I understand it, a high coliform count

could indicate a high number of friendly bacteria, which is definitely

a good thing.)

Why would she set the coliform limit so low? Find out why, as people

operate with hidden agendas all the time.

Cheryl

[Guest guest]

I don’t milk cows that’s why I

was wondering how obtainable the 10 cfu/ml coliform count is.

I may have the answer in this quote from

L. Garthwaite, BA, MA, PhD

Owner, Claravale Farm in California:

“A couple of quick comments on some of the numbers on the CDFA

fact sheet and news release: The CDFA says that 25% of bulk tank samples meet

the 10/ml level suggesting that 25% of the milk could be sold as raw. This is

how that works out mathematically: 25% means that three out of four samples are

bad. The state condemns milk if three out of five samples are bad. Three out of

four is higher than three out of five. At a 25% rate of good samples not a

single drop of raw milk will ever be bottled.”

I wonder if other producers would verify

this?

,

One more thing...

Ms. , as a microbiologist, would know that coliforms mean

Colony Forming Bacteria, and this designation does not specify if the

bacteria is friendly or pathogenic. The coliform count is arbitrary.

Then why would she set the coliform limit so low? (Raw milk if full

of friendly bacteria, and as I understand it, a high coliform count

could indicate a high number of friendly bacteria, which is definitely

a good thing.)

Why would she set the coliform limit so low? Find out why, as people

operate with hidden agendas all the time.

Cheryl

[Guest guest]

Thanks for all the responses. To answer some questions:

I drink as much raw milk as I can get my hands on. I usually go

through a gallon a week, I especially like to culture it into

buttermilk.

The farmers we interviewed were generally small, family farmers. Not

many sell raw milk (cow, goat, or sheep), many organic, although not

all certified, and a few conventional farmers. Most of the dairies had

less than a dozen milking animals. We have brand new farmers, fourth

or fifth generation farmers, three young siblings (oldest 13yo)

managing their milk goats.

Millicent would probably stand to gain some business if more farmers

opt to test their milk. Her operation is very small, however, and as

she has no employees, and runs her farm, she really doesn't have the

time to expand to try and make a mint off of the testing business.

(Plus, there aren't that many people in VT.)

The farmers that I've talked all agree that the standards in the bill

are reasonable. In fact, they insist on having testing procedures to

ensure the quality of the raw milk produced. They do not want their

industry to be endangered by one negligent farmer that leads to a

lawsuit. Many have had their milk tested, and logic follows they

believe that they can consistently produce a product with less than 10

cfu/ml. I don't know why farmers in CA are having a hard time doing

this, or why 3/4 of one man's samples would fail.

Also, a really important point to make is that if a dairy farmer does

not want to become certified under the new law, they do not have to.

They can simply continue to produce milk under the current law. This

means they can sell only 25qts/day, and are not allowed to advertise

or deliver.

*if anyone wants to find out more about coliforms, Milicent has her

contact info on her website. She's a great lady, I'm sure she'd answer

questions.

katie

[Guest guest]

I looked at your web site and you folks

certainly have done a lot of work.

I wish you the best in getting this new

bill passed.

It looks like the 10 ml/cfu coliform count

somehow has gotten into a lot of states laws. This is something we all

need to work toward changing, because it appears that there is not good science

behind it.

Sincerely,

Thanks for all the responses. To answer some

questions:

I drink as much raw milk as I can get my hands on. I usually go

through a gallon a week, I especially like to culture it into

buttermilk.

The farmers we interviewed were generally small, family farmers. Not

many sell raw milk (cow, goat, or sheep), many organic, although not

all certified, and a few conventional farmers. Most of the dairies had

less than a dozen milking animals. We have brand new farmers, fourth

or fifth generation farmers, three young siblings (oldest 13yo)

managing their milk goats.

Millicent would probably stand to gain some business if more farmers

opt to test their milk. Her operation is very small, however, and as

she has no employees, and runs her farm, she really doesn't have the

time to expand to try and make a mint off of the testing business.

(Plus, there aren't that many people in VT.)

The farmers that I've talked all agree that the standards in the bill

are reasonable. In fact, they insist on having testing procedures to

ensure the quality of the raw milk produced. They do not want their

industry to be endangered by one negligent farmer that leads to a

lawsuit. Many have had their milk tested, and logic follows they

believe that they can consistently produce a product with less than 10

cfu/ml. I don't know why farmers in CA are having a hard time doing

this, or why 3/4 of one man's samples would fail.

Also, a really important point to make is that if a dairy farmer does

not want to become certified under the new law, they do not have to.

They can simply continue to produce milk under the current law. This

means they can sell only 25qts/day, and are not allowed to advertise

or deliver.

*if anyone wants to find out more about coliforms, Milicent has her

contact info on her website. She's a great lady, I'm sure she'd answer

questions.

katie

[Guest guest]

deedee

thanks for the tip about where to collect the milk from, i'll bring

the point up. and I do agree that cfu is pretty much bunk, but we're

trying to get a bill that will pass, and there is a lot of opposition

from terrified germophobes.

thanks again for all of your concern

katie

[Guest guest]

deedee

thanks for the tip about where to collect the milk from, i'll bring

the point up. and I do agree that cfu is pretty much bunk, but we're

trying to get a bill that will pass, and there is a lot of opposition

from terrified germophobes.

thanks again for all of your concern

katie

[Guest guest]

Cheryl

I feel like I'm being attacked, and I think that you're getting the

wrong idea. I am not pushing " stringent standards " on anyone. I'm just

an intern who loves raw milk . I only do what my local family farmers

are asking me to help them with.

The truth is that raw animal products do pose a potential risk. Just

as it is important to handle raw meat in ways that promote

cleanliness, it is important to take good care of dairy animals and

their milk. This bill is how the farmers want to make sure that they

are producing a healthy product.

Also, the old regulations were in no way designed to force farmers to

get permits. The rules were not even official legislation, but simply

a handshake agreement based on one farmer who asked for an exemption

from being forced to pasteurize his milk so that he could use it to

pay his handful of farmhands.

[Guest guest]

,

I'm sorry that you feel that you are being attacked. All I did was

ask you to defend the position of the organization to intern with.

I don't think that's unreasonable to ask, especially since you

invited comment in your original posting on the Vermont bill.

I wish Vermont farmers the best of luck. I haven't been in the raw

milk movement all that long, but long enough to know that when the

bureaucrats gets their hands in regulating raw milk, the farmer is

generally the loser.

Signed,

Cheryl

Wisconsin Organic Dairy Farmer

Farmshare Owner/Operator

P.S. Legislation cannot ensure a healthy product (look at all of

the USDA inspected e-coli tainted meat). Only the farmer can.