Re: Report on California Raw Milk Hearing

[Guest guest]

,

> On Tuesday, I spent a long 8 hours at our state capitol,attending a joint

> hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee & SenateSelect Committee on

> Food-Borne Illness regarding raw milk in California.

Thanks for the report!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Thanks and a very well-done for attending the California Raw Milk Hearing and

reporting on what happened.

It's good to know that we have a good Senator in Senator Florez. There does

seem to be some anti-social personalities in our government.

Do you think the positive testimony regarding raw milk made any headway against

the negative testimony?

Keep up the good work!

Pamela

<spiorad@...> wrote: On Tuesday, I spent a long 8 hours at our state

capitol,attending a joint hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee &

SenateSelect Committee on Food-Borne Illness regarding raw milk in California.

Background: Rawmilk—milk that has not been pasteurized (heated to kill

bacteria)—is sold atthe retail level in only a few states in the country,

California being one of them. In other states it is sold direct from farmsor

through “cow share” programs, and in some states it is illegal to sell.

Last November, the CA Food & Drug Administration snuck througha law amending the

food code, not notifying the two sole raw milk companies inthe state, nor any

consumers, and the governor signed it. It took effect January 1st. This law

set the limit of raw milk to “10coliforms of bacteria per ml” which is so low

that 75% of the raw milk producedwould not meet the standard.

Coliformsthemselves are not pathogens and in fact some of them are the

friendlybacteria. In the 87 year history ofClaravale Dairy and the 6 year

history of Organic Pastures Diary, not onesingle pathogen has ever been found in

either of their milk. At Organic Pastures, where the cows arecompletely

free-ranging on grass pasture, they can’t even find pathogens on thepremises,

including in the manure, which is totally unheard of.

The meeting was supposed to start at 3 pm, but it had towait until the Senate

Transportation Committee finished its meeting in the sameroom. Well, that took

2 hours. So for 2 hours I got to hear transportationbills presented, hear

supporting and opposing arguments, and then get votedon. I have to say, this

was fascinatingin itself. It gave me a glimpse of howlaws come into being and

how much work it must take to get a law agreed-uponand get enough votes.

Finally, a little after 5 pm, the hearing started. Senator Dean Florez, member

of the AgCommittee and Chair of the Food-Borne Illness Committee had called the

hearingand he presided through the whole thing.

Only two other senators made their presence, one for a short time and

Senator, a member of the Ag Committee, for most of it, but the idea was

to getthe testimony of the interested parties on the official record (they have

afancy AV system where everything is filmed and recorded and later

transcribedfor review.)

Senator Florez noted that despite several letters, the CFDA

and FDA refused to participate, claiming they couldn’t because of pending

litigation (Claravale and Organic Pastures had to get an injunction so they

wouldn’t be put out of business by the law being enforced).

The first panel up was a group of consumers. As was heard throughout the

hearing, eachgave a passionate personal story of success with raw milk.

Examples included being lactose intolerantand dairy-free by necessity for 20

years but now able to use diary for thefirst time when using raw milk; a sick,

non-thriving baby becoming ear infection-freeand thriving on raw milk, allergies

and asthma cured by raw milk; digestiveproblems cured by raw milk; a family of 5

having no colds or flu in the 7months since they switched to raw milk; etc.

The next panel was members of the CA Dept of PublicHealth. (They had at first

declined toparticipate until one of the senator’s terse letters.) They really

had nothing to contribute on theissue—they just reported what their role was if

an outbreak of illness occurred,the procedures they go through, etc. Theyhad

nothing to say about raw milk per se.

Next was a panel of scientists from UC . These were the conventional

scientists, oneof whom was just evil, because he clearly had an anti-raw milk

agenda. He cited a whole bunch of illness outbreaksand deaths attributed to raw

milk and said it was an extremely dangerousproduct, etc. He noted that

Washington state and Pennsylvania have the same 10 coliform testand they have a

thriving raw milk industry.

He said specific pathogen testing was completely unfeasible as it wouldtake too

long and be too expensive, putting the dairies out of business. Another guy had

traveled to many dairiesaround the world and told how raw milk is available

throughout Europe and theyuse a 100 coliform test, but on the other hand in

Canada raw milk is completelyillegal to sell. He thought the 10coliform test

was valid. A microbiologistlady was a little more reasonable as she said the

main issue was sanitation andthe 10 coliform test is merely an indicator of that

sanitation. She acknowledged that the 10 coliform testdoes not indicate

pathogens and that a better approach would be a HACCP (hazardanalysis and

critical control points) plan, which is a systematic preventativeapproach to

food safety that addresses specific hazards along specific pointsof the

production process as a means of prevention rather than finished

productinspection.

The next panel was the pro-raw milk expert panel, consistingof Sally Fallon,

founder of the Weston A Price Foundation, the Campaign forReal Milk, and the

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Aajonus Vonderplanitz, well-knownauthor and

raw animal food guru (the Primal Diet), a raw dairyman from Canada,a

distinguished pathologist from Michigan, and a microbiologist. There might have

been one moremicrobiologist, I don’t remember exactly.

Sally started out by explaining how around the country thereis a bias against

raw milk and how anti-raw milk government agencies includingthe CDC and FDA have

many tactics they routinely use, such as when there is anoutbreak of illness,

they always ask if raw milk was drunk and may not ask ifother things were

consumed. If the answer is yes, they attribute it to raw milkand issue a press

release and recall product and it’s all over the news. If not, they don’t

bother toinvestigate! If raw milk as drunk, they nowdo testing and find it

wasn’t the milk, but they never issue a retraction and theyeven leave the false

accusation on their website. This was one of many examples. She noted that in

Washington which has the 10 coliform test,the health department there never

tells the farmers the results of their tests,they just say they passed, and they

refused to reveal the results whenrequested. She thinks the test isn’tbeing

passed, but they are

letting the milk be sold anyway, as there’d be arevolution if they stopped it.

She alsomade the point, which I found fascinating, that raw milk is a pro-biotic

and issupposed to have live bacteria in it, so it is not supposed to be a

sterileproduct like pasteurized milk. Thequality of it is actually being

reduced it if it is made nearly sterile. One is really dealing with a

differentanimal. She said a lot more but thoseare some things I remember.

Aajonus spoke and got kind of technical. He was talkingabout how testing in a

Petri dish is not the same bacteria in their naturalenvironment. I don’t feel

his testimonywas particularly compelling. It was alsoobvious that he invited

himself to that panel.

(I’ve read his books—he doesn’t believe in pathogens. He believes if bacteria

and viruses make yousick, they are just being janitors cleaning up toxins.)

The Canadian dairyman spoke.

I guess he sells on the black market in Canada and mentioned there is awarrant

out on him. One point he made isthat the real point of pasteurization is not

safety, it is shelf-life, whichSenator Florez understood meant, in other words,

profits.

The microbiologist guy spoke and he was good but he got verytechnical. I don’t

remember his mainpoints. (That’s what happens when onepasses misunderstood

words--one goes blank!)

The Michiganpathologist spoke and he was really good. He had a long and

distinguishedcareer and was also a university teacher and was involved with raw

milk in Michigan. In Michigan,they don’t call it raw milk, they call it “fresh

unprocessed milk.” This is because all Michigan laws assume any raw milk will

beprocessed (pasteurized), so they had to distinguish that they were

actuallydealing with a different product altogether before they could formulate

anystandards. He said the 10 coliform testwas meaningless as pathogens can

still exist even when there are low coliformcounts, that better would be

specific pathogen testing. He refuted the evil UC guy by saying in

Michiganthey get specific pathogen test results in 24 hours at acceptable costs,

sothey are totally feasible. He went on toagree that HACCP is ultimately the

best way to go but originally he wasn’tgoing to bring it up as it was too lofty

a goal. He was happy to hear it brought

up, but saidthat to be real with raw milk, it would have to go all the way back

to soilquality, which affects grass quality, in other words, the very beginning

of theproduction. HACCP already exists in thedairy industry but only with milk

processing plants, not dairiesthemselves. Senator Florez asked aboutthe

opposite views between the earlier panel and this panel, and thepathologist

responded that there are two sides, those who follow old dogma andthose who look

at current research.

Senator Florez understood this!

Senator Florez asked the panel, what law should we put onthe governor’s desk?

He said we are notgoing to repeal AB 1735 (the 10 coliform test law) and that we

are not going togo back to the way it was. Sallysuggested the 100 coliform test

like Europeand he responded “Let’s not go there.”

He was actually quite idealistic and asked how could it be madebetter? How

could California set the standard and be theleader? Specific pathogen testing

and aHACCP plan? He asked the panel to gettogether and come up with

legislation. (Myopinion was that the way it was was fine as evidenced by the

perfect record ofthe existing dairies.)

The next panel was the producers, Mark McAfee of OrganicPastures and Collette

Cassidy of Claravale.

Collette read a statement re-stating much of what had already been heardby this

time. Mark also read a statementand added that they already test for pathogens

regularly, that there are newtests that give results in 10 minutes, that he

developed the first HACCP plansfor apples for Odwalla back when unpasteurized

apple juice caused severaldeaths (causing unpasteurized apple juice to no longer

be sold) and thus he wasvery familiar with them. He said he wasvery willing to

work on legislation that would include a basic HACCP and had noproblem with it.

Senator Florezquestioned him about “basic” and Mark responded that in his

experience theyhave to be basic, stressing fundamentals, because they only work

when they areactually done, implying that if they are too detailed, they don’t

getdone. He seemed to really know what hewas talking about in the area and the

Senator seemed to accept it. The Senator now brought up the idea ofperhaps a 50

coliform

test plus HACCP as possible legislation.

Finally was a panel of retailers. I guess this originally was supposed

toinclude a couple people from Whole Foods and Elliot’s Natural Foods but it

wasnow past 10 pm and they had bailed. Leftwere the buyer from Rainbow Foods in

San

Francisco and the head of a local buying club. The head of the buying club

gave morepersonal testimonials of the health benefits, and the Rainbow Grocery

buyerspoke of the high demand and increasing shelf space and how people line up

atopening time the two days Claravale is delivered and the supply is always

gonethat day. Unfortunately in my eyes was norepresentative from Sacramento

Natural Foods Co-op.

Last but not least, the floor was opened to consumers oranyone who wanted to

speak. A dozen or so more personal testimonials of healthrecoveries and benefits

of raw milk were expressed. I liked the lady who said this wasn’t justabout raw

milk in California,this was really about CHANGING THE WORLD!

Thus at 11pm, the hearing ended. More was said than I report here—it was 6hours

after all—but I didn’t take notes, so this is what I remember fornow. The

Senator said transcripts wouldbe made available.

Senator noted that in his 12 years in the

legislature, this was the best hearing he had ever attended!

I must comment that I was absolutely impressed by SenatorFlorez. He was firm

when needed, yethumorous and very welcoming and respectful of all who spoke. He

really listened to everyone and sincerelythanked them all. By holding

thishearing, he was interested in the truth being put on the record and

reallyhelping the people of California. It was really quite refreshing for one

whohas a generally negative view of politicians.

This guy is truly a social personality, by which I mean, he is truly aman of

good will. He would likely havemy vote in an instant any day.

[Guest guest]

Definitely. Now I think it's just a matter of getting the other Senators to

review the transcript. Senator Florez recognized that the negative testimony

was more old dogma than current science, and I don't see how someone could

ignore all the positive personal stories and the obvious growth and demand, not

to mention the testimony of the pro-raw milk experts which clearly refuted the

negative testimony.

I should add that Sally refuted all the claims of illness or death claimed by

the earlier panel, saying they were all unproven and biased in the manner I

described. She also said government statistics show one is 10 times more likely

to get sick from deli meats than raw milk (as that is ASSUMING that reported

cases of illness from raw milk are valid, as noted in the current issue of Wise

Traditions).

Re: Report on California Raw Milk Hearing

Hi ,

Thanks and a very well-done for attending the California Raw Milk Hearing and

reporting on what happened.

It's good to know that we have a good Senator in Senator Florez. There does

seem to be some anti-social personalities in our government.

Do you think the positive testimony regarding raw milk made any headway against

the negative testimony?

Keep up the good work!

Pamela

<spiorad (DOT) com> wrote: On Tuesday, I spent a long 8 hours at our

state capitol,attending a joint hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee &

SenateSelect Committee on Food-Borne Illness regarding raw milk in California.

Background: Rawmilk—milk that has not been pasteurized (heated to kill

bacteria)—is sold atthe retail level in only a few states in the country,

California being one of them. In other states it is sold direct from farmsor

through “cow share” programs, and in some states it is illegal to sell.

Last November, the CA Food & Drug Administration snuck througha law amending the

food code, not notifying the two sole raw milk companies inthe state, nor any

consumers, and the governor signed it. It took effect January 1st. This law

set the limit of raw milk to “10coliforms of bacteria per ml” which is so low

that 75% of the raw milk producedwould not meet the standard.

Coliformsthemselves are not pathogens and in fact some of them are the

friendlybacteria. In the 87 year history ofClaravale Dairy and the 6 year

history of Organic Pastures Diary, not onesingle pathogen has ever been found in

either of their milk. At Organic Pastures, where the cows arecompletely

free-ranging on grass pasture, they can’t even find pathogens on thepremises,

including in the manure, which is totally unheard of.

The meeting was supposed to start at 3 pm, but it had towait until the Senate

Transportation Committee finished its meeting in the sameroom. Well, that took

2 hours. So for 2 hours I got to hear transportationbills presented, hear

supporting and opposing arguments, and then get votedon. I have to say, this

was fascinatingin itself. It gave me a glimpse of howlaws come into being and

how much work it must take to get a law agreed-uponand get enough votes.

Finally, a little after 5 pm, the hearing started. Senator Dean Florez, member

of the AgCommittee and Chair of the Food-Borne Illness Committee had called the

hearingand he presided through the whole thing.

Only two other senators made their presence, one for a short time and

Senator, a member of the Ag Committee, for most of it, but the idea was

to getthe testimony of the interested parties on the official record (they have

afancy AV system where everything is filmed and recorded and later

transcribedfor review.)

Senator Florez noted that despite several letters, the CFDA

and FDA refused to participate, claiming they couldn’t because of pending

litigation (Claravale and Organic Pastures had to get an injunction so they

wouldn’t be put out of business by the law being enforced).

The first panel up was a group of consumers. As was heard throughout the

hearing, eachgave a passionate personal story of success with raw milk.

Examples included being lactose intolerantand dairy-free by necessity for 20

years but now able to use diary for thefirst time when using raw milk; a sick,

non-thriving baby becoming ear infection-freeand thriving on raw milk, allergies

and asthma cured by raw milk; digestiveproblems cured by raw milk; a family of 5

having no colds or flu in the 7months since they switched to raw milk; etc.

The next panel was members of the CA Dept of PublicHealth. (They had at first

declined toparticipate until one of the senator’s terse letters.) They really

had nothing to contribute on theissue—they just reported what their role was if

an outbreak of illness occurred,the procedures they go through, etc. Theyhad

nothing to say about raw milk per se.

Next was a panel of scientists from UC . These were the conventional

scientists, oneof whom was just evil, because he clearly had an anti-raw milk

agenda. He cited a whole bunch of illness outbreaksand deaths attributed to raw

milk and said it was an extremely dangerousproduct, etc. He noted that

Washington state and Pennsylvania have the same 10 coliform testand they have a

thriving raw milk industry.

He said specific pathogen testing was completely unfeasible as it wouldtake too

long and be too expensive, putting the dairies out of business. Another guy had

traveled to many dairiesaround the world and told how raw milk is available

throughout Europe and theyuse a 100 coliform test, but on the other hand in

Canada raw milk is completelyillegal to sell. He thought the 10coliform test

was valid. A microbiologistlady was a little more reasonable as she said the

main issue was sanitation andthe 10 coliform test is merely an indicator of that

sanitation. She acknowledged that the 10 coliform testdoes not indicate

pathogens and that a better approach would be a HACCP (hazardanalysis and

critical control points) plan, which is a systematic preventativeapproac h to

food safety that addresses specific hazards along specific pointsof the

production process as a means of prevention rather than finished

productinspection.

The next panel was the pro-raw milk expert panel, consistingof Sally Fallon,

founder of the Weston A Price Foundation, the Campaign forReal Milk, and the

Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; Aajonus Vonderplanitz, well-knownauthor and

raw animal food guru (the Primal Diet), a raw dairyman from Canada,a

distinguished pathologist from Michigan, and a microbiologist. There might have

been one moremicrobiologist, I don’t remember exactly.

Sally started out by explaining how around the country thereis a bias against

raw milk and how anti-raw milk government agencies includingthe CDC and FDA have

many tactics they routinely use, such as when there is anoutbreak of illness,

they always ask if raw milk was drunk and may not ask ifother things were

consumed. If the answer is yes, they attribute it to raw milkand issue a press

release and recall product and it’s all over the news. If not, they don’t

bother toinvestigate! If raw milk as drunk, they nowdo testing and find it

wasn’t the milk, but they never issue a retraction and theyeven leave the false

accusation on their website. This was one of many examples. She noted that in

Washington which has the 10 coliform test,the health department there never

tells the farmers the results of their tests,they just say they passed, and they

refused to reveal the results whenrequested. She thinks the test isn’tbeing

passed, but they are

letting the milk be sold anyway, as there’d be arevolution if they stopped it.

She alsomade the point, which I found fascinating, that raw milk is a pro-biotic

and issupposed to have live bacteria in it, so it is not supposed to be a

sterileproduct like pasteurized milk. Thequality of it is actually being

reduced it if it is made nearly sterile. One is really dealing with a

differentanimal. She said a lot more but thoseare some things I remember.

Aajonus spoke and got kind of technical. He was talkingabout how testing in a

Petri dish is not the same bacteria in their naturalenvironment. I don’t feel

his testimonywas particularly compelling. It was alsoobvious that he invited

himself to that panel.

(I’ve read his books—he doesn’t believe in pathogens. He believes if bacteria

and viruses make yousick, they are just being janitors cleaning up toxins.)

The Canadian dairyman spoke.

I guess he sells on the black market in Canada and mentioned there is awarrant

out on him. One point he made isthat the real point of pasteurization is not

safety, it is shelf-life, whichSenator Florez understood meant, in other words,

profits.

The microbiologist guy spoke and he was good but he got verytechnical. I don’t

remember his mainpoints. (That’s what happens when onepasses misunderstood

words--one goes blank!)

The Michiganpathologist spoke and he was really good. He had a long and

distinguishedcareer and was also a university teacher and was involved with raw

milk in Michigan. In Michigan,they don’t call it raw milk, they call it “fresh

unprocessed milk.” This is because all Michigan laws assume any raw milk will

beprocessed (pasteurized) , so they had to distinguish that they were

actuallydealing with a different product altogether before they could formulate

anystandards. He said the 10 coliform testwas meaningless as pathogens can

still exist even when there are low coliformcounts, that better would be

specific pathogen testing. He refuted the evil UC guy by saying in

Michiganthey get specific pathogen test results in 24 hours at acceptable costs,

sothey are totally feasible. He went on toagree that HACCP is ultimately the

best way to go but originally he wasn’tgoing to bring it up as it was too lofty

a goal. He was happy to hear it brought

up, but saidthat to be real with raw milk, it would have to go all the way back

to soilquality, which affects grass quality, in other words, the very beginning

of theproduction. HACCP already exists in thedairy industry but only with milk

processing plants, not dairiesthemselves. Senator Florez asked aboutthe

opposite views between the earlier panel and this panel, and thepathologist

responded that there are two sides, those who follow old dogma andthose who look

at current research.

Senator Florez understood this!

Senator Florez asked the panel, what law should we put onthe governor’s desk?

He said we are notgoing to repeal AB 1735 (the 10 coliform test law) and that we

are not going togo back to the way it was. Sallysuggested the 100 coliform test

like Europeand he responded “Let’s not go there.”

He was actually quite idealistic and asked how could it be madebetter? How

could California set the standard and be theleader? Specific pathogen testing

and aHACCP plan? He asked the panel to gettogether and come up with

legislation. (Myopinion was that the way it was was fine as evidenced by the

perfect record ofthe existing dairies.)

The next panel was the producers, Mark McAfee of OrganicPastures and Collette

Cassidy of Claravale.

Collette read a statement re-stating much of what had already been heardby this

time. Mark also read a statementand added that they already test for pathogens

regularly, that there are newtests that give results in 10 minutes, that he

developed the first HACCP plansfor apples for Odwalla back when unpasteurized

apple juice caused severaldeaths (causing unpasteurized apple juice to no longer

be sold) and thus he wasvery familiar with them. He said he wasvery willing to

work on legislation that would include a basic HACCP and had noproblem with it.

Senator Florezquestioned him about “basic” and Mark responded that in his

experience theyhave to be basic, stressing fundamentals, because they only work

when they areactually done, implying that if they are too detailed, they don’t

getdone. He seemed to really know what hewas talking about in the area and the

Senator seemed to accept it. The Senator now brought up the idea ofperhaps a 50

coliform

test plus HACCP as possible legislation.

Finally was a panel of retailers. I guess this originally was supposed

toinclude a couple people from Whole Foods and Elliot’s Natural Foods but it

wasnow past 10 pm and they had bailed. Leftwere the buyer from Rainbow Foods in

San

Francisco and the head of a local buying club. The head of the buying club

gave morepersonal testimonials of the health benefits, and the Rainbow Grocery

buyerspoke of the high demand and increasing shelf space and how people line up

atopening time the two days Claravale is delivered and the supply is always

gonethat day. Unfortunately in my eyes was norepresentative from Sacramento

Natural Foods Co-op.

Last but not least, the floor was opened to consumers oranyone who wanted to

speak. A dozen or so more personal testimonials of healthrecoveries and benefits

of raw milk were expressed. I liked the lady who said this wasn’t justabout raw

milk in California,this was really about CHANGING THE WORLD!

Thus at 11pm, the hearing ended. More was said than I report here—it was 6hours

after all—but I didn’t take notes, so this is what I remember fornow. The

Senator said transcripts wouldbe made available.

Senator noted that in his 12 years in the

legislature, this was the best hearing he had ever attended!

I must comment that I was absolutely impressed by SenatorFlorez. He was firm

when needed, yethumorous and very welcoming and respectful of all who spoke. He

really listened to everyone and sincerelythanked them all. By holding

thishearing, he was interested in the truth being put on the record and

reallyhelping the people of California. It was really quite refreshing for one

whohas a generally negative view of politicians.

This guy is truly a social personality, by which I mean, he is truly aman of

good will. He would likely havemy vote in an instant any day.

[Guest guest]

here's another report on the meeting.

http://www.organicpastures.com/e_letter_12_post.html

>

> On Tuesday, I spent a long 8 hours at our state capitol,attending a joint

hearing of the

Senate Agriculture Committee & SenateSelect Committee on Food-Borne Illness

regarding

raw milk in California.

>

> Background: Rawmilk—milk that has not been pasteurized (heated to kill

bacteria)—is sold

atthe retail level in only a few states in the country, California being one of

them. In other

states it is sold direct from farmsor through " cow share " programs, and in some

states it is

illegal to sell.

>