Another CA Raw Dairy Farmer speaks out

[Guest guest]

From Ron @ Claravale:> There is a rumor circulating that we, the owners of> Claravale Farm, are in favor of AB1735. That rumor> couldn't be further from the truth. We have just> been> trying to figure our what we are going to do to> survive. We are still in the process of moving to a> new place which is the culmination of 12 years of> hard> work to create a 1930s style dairy. Well, we're not> in> the 1930s anymore and as Dorothy said to Toto, I> don't> think we're in Kansas anymore. That said, we> strongly> encourage everyone who wants to continue your God> given and constitutional right to eat whatever food> you want, to exercise your liberties in righting> this> wrong. Please read the attached letter which> clarifies> our position.>> Dear Customers and Concerned Citizens:>> As the owner of Claravale Farm, I would like to> weigh> in on the recently passed AB 1735. We have been> getting a number of questions from our customers to> which I would like to respond as well as the press> release from the California Department of Food and> Agriculture (CDFA) and a letter from Nicole Parra> (chair of the assembly committee on agriculture)> that> was sent to our customers.>> Many of you want to know where we stand on this new> regulation so let me give you our position up front:> This new regulation and the method with which it was> implemented stink. If you want to continue to be> able> to get Claravale milk or any raw milk in California> you need to fight this law with everything you have.>> For many years now we have been telling our> customers> that there is no conspiracy within the CDFA to> eliminate raw milk; that the state was actually very> supportive of the product. We were dead wrong. I'm> sorry for having misled you. They are simply much> more> devious, two-faced, and sinister than I could ever> have imagined. The reasons that they state for> incorporating this new regulation are so> transparently> false and the highly secretive method of its> introduction so obviously inappropriate that I think> that there can be no doubt that the CDFA is on a> mission to hobble the raw milk industry in> California.> Once again, our government is using secrecy, lies,> and> half truths to advance their own agenda without> having> to put up with the inconvenience of having to deal> with the people who they supposedly serve.>> We already have an excellent and well constructed> raw> milk testing protocol in California which includes> bacterial counts and tests for all of the pertinent> pathogens. The state has not been able to shut us> down> with these regulations not because the regulations> are> insufficient but because our product is clean and> safe. So now they come up with a new regulation that> contributes not at all to product safety nor, at the> bacterial levels we are talking about, to product> quality. Rather, the regulation seems to be solely> for> the purpose of limiting the raw milk industry in the> state to an insignificant level that would be> entirely> inadequate to meet the demands of the people of> California for raw milk.>> Our customers tell us that the CDFA has told them> that> we are in favor of this law. In some> weird-bureaucratic-alien-space logic they say that> since we didn't say anything against it we must be> for> it. Of course we didn't say anything against it> because we, like everyone else, knew nothing about> it.> We didn't inform them that we were against it> because> they never informed us of its existence. Let me be> clear: we are not in favor of this law.>> According to our customers the CDFA has also told> them> that we are already in compliance with the new> regulation. As I understand the regulation this is> not> true. While the milk in our bulk tank (where the> milk> is held after it comes out of the cow but before it> goes into the bottle) consistently meets the new> requirement, the milk in our bottles does not.>> The CDFA's main argument in advancing this bill is a> public safety argument. They state that coliform> bacteria are a fecal contaminant, that it is a> danger> to the public, and that they need this new law in> order to protect the public. This statement is> patently false on a number of levels as discussed> below.>> 1. The coliform bacteria in our milk do not come> from> manure contamination. I am so sick and tired of the> CDFA telling people that our milk is contaminated> with> feces. It is not true. Our milk is not contaminated> with feces. They seem to think that if they say it> enough people will believe it. It doesn't matter how> many times they say it, it is not true. I repeat:> Our> milk is not contaminated with feces. The fact that> the> milk in our bulk tank meets the coliform limits for> sterilized (i.e. pasteurized) milk demonstrates this> fact absolutely and conclusively. At Claravale farm> we> have been producing high quality, clean, safe, raw> milk for over 80 years. We know how to milk cows. I> would take exception to the CDFA's statement that> most> coliform bacteria come from feces but whether they> do> or not, it is an irrelevant, inflammatory statement.> Coliform bacteria exist and thrive without contact> with warm blooded animals either inside or out. It> doesn't matter where most of them come from. The> coliform bacteria in our milk are not from this> source.>> The reason why it is so important to the CDFA that> you> think that there is cow manure in our milk is that> they are trying to play off of the recent hysteria> over produce and beef illnesses due to pathenogenic> coliform. They are trying to create a raw milk> hysteria that will get people to support their bill.> In other words, they think you're not very smart.>> 2. Coliform bacteria are not a health threat. I know> it's been said before but apparently it bears> repeating: Coliform bacteria are everywhere in vast> uncountably huge numbers. They are on every surface> of> everything you touch every day. They are on the top> of> Steven Bean's desk (I doubt that even he would argue> a> cow manure source for those particular coliform).> Every day we all (even non raw milk drinkers)> consume> uncountably huge numbers of coliform bacteria. Right> now, sitting there, you are composed of more> bacterial> cells, living on and in you, than human cells. The> vast majority of these bacteria are coliform. It is> a> sign of the times we live in that most people> consider> what are probably the most numerous and ubiquitous> life forms on the planet to be some bizarre,> dangerous, anomaly. If coliform bacteria were> dangerous we would all be dead before we even got> out> of bed.>> All of this is not to say that very high levels of> coliform bacteria in raw milk are good. They are not> necessarily (see below) but the assertion that> coliform bacteria are a health threat is illogical> and> untenable and demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of> basic bacteriology. The CDFA knows that this> assertion> is false but again, they think that if they can> generate hysteria by calling it a health threat they> can gain public support for a law which has nothing> whatsoever to do with public safety but which has> much> more sinister objectives.>> 3. Yes, there are very, very, very rare pathenogenic> forms of coliform bacteria but because they are> very,> very, very rare this new regulation does nothing> whatsoever to aid in the detection of these> pathogens.> There already exists in California an excellent> testing protocol for raw milk designed to ensure> public safety. Among many other things, these> protocols include limits on the number of bacteria> which are allowed in the milk and specific tests for> all of the pertinent pathogens including> pathenogenic> coliform. Even in the absence of tests for specific> pathogens a coliform plate count tells you> absolutely> nothing about the presence or absence of pathogens.> To> try to argue that the new regulation is necessary> for> the detection of pathogens given the already> existing> specific pathogen tests is just stupid. It is as if> the CDFA doesn't even know why they do the tests> they> do. Under the new law the coliform counts will be> taken on exactly the same milk samples as the> specific> pathogen tests. These specific tests tell the CDFA> absolutely whether pathenogenic coliform are present> or not. The overall coliform count is simply> meaningless in this context. Again, the fact that> this> new regulation cannot be used to ensure public> safety> since it gives no additional data pertinent to> public> safety argues for an alternate objective for the> bill's originators.>> The whole thing seems doubly absurd given the fact> that, to my knowledge, there has not been a case of> pathenogenic coliform bacteria found in raw milk> (there have, however, been cases of government> agencies trying to pin pathenogenic coliform> outbreaks> on raw milk dairies unjustly). The pathogens which> are> more likely to be found in raw milk (salmonella and> lysteria) won't even show up on a coliform count> because they are not coliform bacteria. But again,> it> doesn't matter because there are specific tests for> these pathogens which are routinely performed by the> CDFA.>> The whole thing seems triply absurd given the very> real food safety issues in California. To put this> much time and money and energy into trying to outlaw> a> food which is demonstrably safe when there are other> food industries out there which are demonstrably not> safe seems to me to be criminal.>> On one of the "fact" sheets given out by the CDFA> there is a statement about how high levels of> coliform> bacteria can affect milk quality by causing off> flavors and shortening shelf life. This is,> strangely> enough, actually a true statement. This is why milk> processors pasteurize; not for public safety but to> get an absurdly long shelf life. At Claravale we> take> a different tack. Rather than sterilizing our milk> to> preserve it so that we can warehouse it before we> finally get around to taking it to the store, we> take> the effort and expense to get it to our customers> quickly. Some of our milk gets to the store within> hours of coming out of the cow and it is never more> than a couple of days old. This is nowhere near> enough> time for bacterial levels to come anywhere near> reaching levels which would cause the milk to be> noticeably bad. The coliform levels necessary to> create noticeably bad milk are orders of magnitude> larger than the less than 10/ml level. Our levels> are> higher than 10/ml but our milk lasts a long time;> certainly longer than the purchase by date that we> put> on the bottle. Even though our levels are higher> than> 10/ml we daily get calls from our customers telling> us> how delicious and wonderful our product is.>> With respect to the discussion here, there are three> factors which influence the growth of bacteria in> milk: initial bacterial count, temperature, and> time.> As I remember from my bacteriology courses, because> bacteria grow exponentially, temperature and time> are> vastly much more important factors in determining> final bacterial count than initial number. Within> the> narrow range of bacterial levels we are dealing with> here, initial bacterial count is irrelevant. Whether> we begin with 10/ml or 20/ml the results will be> essentially the same. Time and temperature, however,> have a large effect. As I have already stated we go> to> great effort to cut down the time component. We also> minimize the effect of temperature. While the CDFA> regulation on temperature is that the milk must be> kept at 45F or below, we keep our milk tank and cold> room at 34F. This is why our milk lasts so long. We> start out at a low bacterial count (although not as> low as 10/ml) and then we keep the milk very cold> and> get it to our customers very fast. Under the new> regulation we could actually legally produce milk> that> has a higher bacterial count when it got to the> customer than it does now by keeping it warmer and> using a longer purchase by date.>> At any rate, with respect to product quality, this> new> law is unnecessary and irrelevant. We already have> laws pertaining to product quality. Specifically,> the> product must be good within the purchase by date> which> must be on the package. It is irrelevant how the> producer manipulates the above three parameters to> get> that result. As long as the purchase by date law is> enforced the customer is assured of getting a good> product.>> In the CDFA "fact" sheet it states that the 10/ml> level is the same level used in several states> including Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and> Washington. If nothing else does, this statement> alone> makes their goal very clear. There are no raw milk> industries in these states. The regulations in these> states were designed to hobble the raw milk industry> not support it. When the CDFA takes a law designed> to> severely restrict raw milk production in one state> and> incorporates it into California's codes obviously> their goal is to severely restrict raw milk> production> in California. In a classic and blatantly obvious> lie> of omission, the CDFA does not tell you in their> "fact" sheet that the states of Connecticut, Idaho,> and New Mexico allow 50/ml in raw milk for direct> human consumption and that the state of Missouri> allows 100/ml. These states have taken the time to> look at the science and develop rational,> intelligent> regulations. They understand that using coliform> levels to test the functioning of a piece of> machinery> is different than setting coliform level allowable> in> raw milk for direct consumption.>> Several times in the literature put out by the CDFA> they state that they will be there to help us> producers meet the new regulations. Bull. It would> have been helpful to have had some input into this> bill particularly concerning the specific allowable> level of coliform bacteria. It would have been very> helpful to have had enough advance notice to> possibly> be able to make changes to conform to the bill. The> fact that this bill was kept secret until there is> not> nearly enough time to adapt (less than 2 months)> demonstrates that the State, in fact, wants us to> fail. We recently completed a new dairy facility at> the cost of a million dollars. The CDFA was entirely> aware of this since we have to submit plans to them> and let them inspect the facility during> construction.> Had they informed us of this new regulation we could> have made changes to the facilities in order to have> a> better chance of meeting the new regulation. Or we> may> have decided not to build at all. Or we may have> decided to construct it to produce products other> than> raw milk. The fact that they went ahead and let us> sell our house and go into significant debt to build> a> facility that they knew they were going to shut down> within a couple months of its completion indicates> that they are anything but helpful. Not only do they> appear to want our dairy to fail but they seem to> want> to totally destroy us personally.>> Much has been said on the internet about the> situation> in Washington. Washington may have about 20> producers> on the books but I don't see the state as having a> significant raw milk industry. I haven't researched> the raw milk dairies of Washington but some have> called me for advice and I've heard about others.> They> seem generally to be small goat operations that sell> largely to their neighbors. The packaging laws are> also different in Washington where they are required> to bottle by hand, which means that they typically> pass the milk from the bulk tank through a couple> feet> of disposable plastic hose into a sterile single use> container. Contrary to what it says on the CDFA> "fact"> sheet this is actually a much cleaner process than> using automatic fillers and cappers. (In fact,> California's machine capping law was not implemented> for cleanliness or public safety reasons directly> but> to prevent dairies from putting milk in the> customers> own containers, which is illegal in California.)> Coliform contamination is a surface area phenomenon.> No surface is 100% cleanable. The more surface area> the milk is required to come in contact with, the> more> coliform will be in the final product. The largest> raw> milk dairy in Washington that I know about is about> our size, however I don't know what percentage of> his> milk he markets as raw. At any rate, both the> coliform> count law and the hand capping law are used in> Washington to limit the industry, to keep raw milk> production in the state small and insignificant.> Obviously you're not going to be producing milk for> 50,000 customers if you're standing at the bulk tank> with a plastic hose filling each bottle individually> by hand. If we were to transfer that small goat> dairy> model to California it would literally take> thousands> of new dairies to fill the existing demand for raw> milk. We just finished building a new dairy in> California. It took us 11 years and a million> dollars.> No small goat operation is going to recoup that kind> of investment. Anyway, if you were to move these> wonderful, clean Washington raw milk producers down> to> California the CDFA would shut them down because> they> don't conform to California's bottling laws.>> We are opposed to a coliform level regulation in raw> milk because it is unnecessary and ineffective in> assuring a safe, high quality product for consumers.> All of the laws exist already which are necessary to> accomplish this end. That is why there isn't already> a> coliform regulation for raw milk. It is irrelevant> and> unnecessary. It wasn't an oversight on the part of> anyone. A maximum coliform level regulation for raw> milk was purposely not included in the code. For> pasteurized milk the milk is pasteurized and then> not> tested for pathogens. In raw milk the milk is not> pasteurized but it is tested for pathogens. Neither> the coliform test on pasteurized milk nor the level> of> 10/ml were developed to directly deal with public> safety issues. Both are used simply to see if the> sterilizer (i.e. pasteurizer) is working properly.> That is why the regulation has historically not been> applied to raw milk. Raw milk is not pasteurized> therefore there is no pasteurizer to test therefore> there is no reason for the regulation. Once again,> the> CDFA does not seem to know why it is performing the> test it does.>> While we think it is unnecessary, Claravale Farm> would> not be opposed to a coliform regulation that was> developed specifically with product quality in mind.> We think that a level of, perhaps, 100 cells/ml> would> be more than sufficient to assure product quality,> could be obtained in farmstead settings with the> application of good dairy practice, and would allow> for the continued production of raw milk at current> levels and above.>> 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. The CDFA also states that> 75% of the bulk milk samples from the two raw milk> dairies meet the new standards. This may be true but> it is irrelevant and intentionally misleading. It> suggests that, with the 3 out of 5 protocol, all of> the milk from these dairies could have been bottled> as> raw even under the new regulation. As I understand> the> new regulation after talking with the state, testing> will be done in the final package, meaning that bulk> tank levels are irrelevant. With testing done in the> bottle virtually none of the milk from our dairy> will> be able to be bottled as raw.>> And yet Nicole Parra tells you in her happy letter> that the availability of raw milk in California will> not be affected. Hmmm.>> While the State of California would very much like> to> ban the sale of raw milk outright it knows that this> would be difficult to accomplish. The tack that it> has> taken instead is to create a false hysteria around> the> product concerning public health and then to hobble> the industry with unnecessary regulations designed> to> keep raw milk production at a low and insignificant> level. While the State will then be able to say that> raw milk is legal, because technically it will be,> it> will not be possible to legally produce it on a> scale> that will come near to fulfilling the demand for raw> milk in California. Believe me, this new bill will> absolutely affect the availability of raw milk in> California and, regardless of what Nicole Parra> says,> you will not be pleased.>> If you want to continue to be able to obtain raw> milk> in California you should fight this law with> everything you have. Even if you are not a raw milk> drinker but want to be able to get fresh,> unadulterated produce or meat or, in fact any fresh> food in the future you should be fighting this law.> This is only one additional step in the State's> campaign to pasteurize or sterilize everything. In> order to present a united front and not duplicate> effort, or work at cross purposes, we would suggest> that our customers go to the Organic Pastures> website> (www.organicpastures.com) or> www.thecompletepatient.com to find out what they can> do to try to get this law reversed.>> Sincerely,> Ronald L. Garthwaite, BA, MA, PhD> Owner, Claravale Farm> November 7, 2007 | Ron Garthwaite

 

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.