The FUTURE is ORGANIC - Raw Dairy Choice

Defending the Rights of Washingtonians to Readily Obtain Raw Milk and Raw Dairy Products

Breaking News
(in order latest first)

A proposed bill (SB 6284 sponsored by Senators Schoesler, Rasmussen, companion bill HB 2568 sponsored by Representative Blake) proposes to eliminate the Washington Dairy Products Commission seat reserved for producer/dealers (in other words, the representative of folks who produce and market their own dairy products). The bill also removes much of the authority from dairy producers and commission members to appoint or nominate commission members, instead giving more of this power over to the WSDA Director who sits on the commission as a voting member.

Washington State has seen an increase in the number of dairy producers who produce, bottle and market their own products. Using this model, small-scale producers have the opportunity to get far higher prices for their products. They sell direct to the public instead of being locked into much lower prices by a contract to sell their milk to a dairy processing company.

Every licensed dairy pays a mandatory assessment of 15 cents per each 100 pounds of milk produced on the farm to fund the Commission. Ten cents of this assessment is managed by the Commission - under state supervision - to fund its activities within Washington. The remaining five cents of the assessment is used to fund advertising, communications and promotional activities at the national level. These assessments are only required from producers of cow milk. Producers of goat or sheep milk are not assessed and therefore have no representation on the Commission Board and are not represented by the Commission.

More information on the WA Dairy Products Commission can be found here:
http://www.havemilk.com/article.asp?id=1486

At this time when we are seeing an up-tick in the number of dairy producer/dealers in Washington, it seems like an unwise move to eliminate their representation on the Commission. Producer/dealers will still be assessed. Some of the marketing concerns of producer/dealers are not the same as the marketing concerns of producers who sell to processors and without a seat on the commission, their concerns will not be addressed, despite their assessments continuing to pay for Commission activities. Removal of the Producer/dealer seat on the Washington Dairy Products Commission should be opposed.

The changes in commission structure having to do with nominations and appointments are somewhat arcane. However, the ramifications of these proposed changes are profound. The proposed changes take power away from the people (producers and commission members who elect and forward nominations to the WSDA Director) and shift more of that power to government by giving the WSDA Director more power in appointing commission members. This is an erosion of democracy and should be opposed.

A public hearing in the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Rural Economic Development is scheduled for Jan 17at 3:30 PM. I encourage dairy producers and consumers alike who can attend this hearing to do so. I include consumers in this request since consumers ultimately are affected by the activities of the Washington Dairy Products Commission. Our interests are better served if the Commission is more representative and more democratic.

Hearing Location:
Senate Hearing Rm 3
J.A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA

If you cannot attend the hearing and you live in a district that has a State Senator on the Agriculture and Rural Economic Development Committee, please contact your Senator and voice your opposition to the proposed changes to the Commission. Committee members are below.

Agriculture & Rural Economic Development Committee Members

Marilyn Rasmussen - Chair (D)
Brian Hatfield - Vice Chair (D)
Mark Schoesler - Ranking Minority Member (R)
Ken Jacobsen (D)
Bob Morton (R)
Paull Shin (D)

Dec. 28, 2007
California dairies sue to stop enforcement of standard on raw milk
Carol Ness, San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer

California's two raw milk producers filed suit Thursday to keep the state from imposing a strict new standard that, they say, would put them out of business.

The suit, filed in San Benito County Superior Court, is part of an all-out effort by the raw milk dairies and the estimated 40,000 dedicated raw milk consumers in California to forestall enforcement of the new law, AB1735, which takes effect Jan. 1.

It was filed by Claravale Farm, which recently moved its herd to Paicines (San Benito County), and Organic Pastures of Fresno against the state Department of Food and Agriculture.

The agriculture department hadn't yet seen the lawsuit and had no immediate comment, spokesman Jay Van Rein said.

"Right now, the department is preparing to enforce the law when it takes effect," Van Rein said.

The new standard, he added, is "just a matter of staying ahead of the curve on food safety."

For the first time, the law limits coliform bacteria in bottled raw milk to just 10 per milliliter, the same standard that pasteurized milk must meet.

The lawsuit contends that "it's not technically possible nor economically feasible" for raw milk to meet such a low limit.

Van Rein, however, said California Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura has checked with his counterparts in Washington and Pennsylvania, which also have adopted a 10-coliform limit, "to make sure their dairies have been able to comply."

The suit also contends that the raw milk producers are being unfairly singled out because there are "no standards in place for other food providers, for example beef, poultry, pork, eggs, vegetables, bakers or fin or shell fish, to comply with a coliform limit in the food stuffs they produce."

Fans seek out raw milk specifically because it contains enzymes and beneficial bacteria that are killed by heat pasteurization.

Coliform exist everywhere in the environment, and most don't cause illness, both raw milk and food safety authorities agree. Raw milk is already tested for the pathogens that do, such as E. coli, salmonella and campylobacter.

Public health authorities have a contentious history with raw milk, which many see as dangerous.

The federal government doesn't allow raw milk to be sold across state lines for human consumption.

California has the nation's biggest raw milk industry, and its vocal consumers have maintained pressure on state government to keep raw milk available. California is one of just a handful of states to permit raw milk sales in stores; many more allow retail sales directly from the farm.

Raw milk proponents see AB1735 as a way for the state to effectively ban raw milk without actually saying so. The two dairy owners were not informed of the proposal as it went through the Legislature and weren't offered the chance to make their case against the coliform limit. Passage was routine.

The lawsuit asks that the law be declared unconstitutional and the court keep it from taking effect.

In addition, the owners of Claravale and Organic Pastures met for more than two hours last week with Kawamura to make their case that the limit is overkill and can't be met. They also have met with AB1735's legislative sponsors to argue for repeal.

E-mail Carol Ness at cness@sfchronicle.com.

Dec. 26 2007
It will be a happy, healthy New Year indeed! California consumers have spoken loudly against AB 1735's biased, scientifically unsupported restrictions on raw milk. Your passionate voices have been heard.

In the last three weeks, the CA raw milk battle front has been abuzz with tremendous grass roots effort, back stage political activity, and high level meetings. As a result, the course of California raw milk history has been changed.

Here is a brief update of the progress:

Three things protect your raw milk in California:

The Secretary of Agriculture has offered political support. A.G. Kawamura has dedicated himself to safe raw milk for California, declaring that "AB 1735 standards will not act as a de-facto ban on raw milk." Secretary Kawamura made this statement adamantly and repeatedly at a December 20th meeting with Claravale and Organic Pastures dairy representatives. He pledged to review our four-inch stack of documentation entitled “AB 1735: Raw Milk-The Unheard Argument” and promised to work with us to assure raw milk's continued availability.

A new law will be introduced in January reversing AB 1735. An investigation has exposed certain CDFA employees who met without authorization and, using erroneous data, advised staff members of the Assembly Agriculture Committee to place "eight special anti-raw milk words" into AB 1735. All CDFA agency legislative matters and bills must be reviewed and authorized by the governor's office, as required by executive branch and administrative policy and procedure. Instead, highly misleading information was used to rapidly and secretly pass AB 1735 on a "consent item" basis without discussion or open debate. Assemblymen and State Senators who voted for AB 1735 are now very upset that they were misled, and support immediate repeal on procedural grounds. The attorney general's office might step in, having noted an aberrant violation of established process in furtherance of a "biased agenda that is far from being consent item."

A lawsuit is being filed this week in San Benito County. Part of that lawsuit includes an injunction which legally secures raw milk producers against enforcement of AB 1735 standards. This allows more certain protection against AB 1735 until a new law can be passed.
While the raw milk fight is far from over, the safety of the California raw milk supply has been secured with multiple layers of strategic political, legislative, and legal efforts. Hearings will soon be announced as part of the new bill and legislative process that will start in January. Your attendance will be essential to deepen the protections put in place.

Keep Sending a Powerful Message: In order to strengthen our work going forward, we ask that you take pictures of yourself and your family holding raw milk bottles from Claravale and/or OPDC. Write on the picture: "Please support repeal of AB 1735." Then mail them to the Governor's office, your State Assemblymen, and State Senators' offices. The impact of a personal plea with a picture of your family is worth a thousand words.

Congratulations to all who participate in the "grass roots raw milk revolution." Your thousands of letters and calls made all the difference! CA Raw Milk is SAFE from AB 1735 and those that sought to eliminate this sacred healing whole food.

Warmly,

Mark McAfee, Founder OPDC

Tell your Legislators: Increase Small Farm Viability by Allowing Licensing of Micro-dairies

What to do: Contact your State Representative TODAY because a bill, HB3010, affecting small-scale dairy farmers is being considered in Committee TOMORROW;

1) Please tell your Representative: HB3010 needs to be amended to include higher raw milk safety and quality standards. As written, the HB3010 fails to protect the public health. Current Grade A raw milk standards in fact create considerable unnecessary risk for consumers who choose raw milk;

2) Please tell your Representative to ask that the bill be amended to create a dairy license category for Micro-dairies. HB 3010 as written will hurt small-scale family farmers. Current Grade A dairy licensing standards were written with only large producers in mind. Many Micro-diaries cannot afford the equipment and physical structure requirements in current law. For micro-dairies to flourish, they need their own license category;

3) Finally, please tell your representative to ask that HB3010 be amended to require the State Dept. of Agriculture to conduct statewide roundtable discussions involving agency representatives, producers and consumers to develop workable Micro-dairy licensing standards. These Roundtables, a common method used to develop new regulations, shall be coordinated by the Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program of the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture whose mandate is to identify and mitigate regulatory barriers facing small farms in Washington State.

Below is more detailed information about the issue. The bill, HB3010, is being heard tomorrow by the House Economic Development, Agriculture and Trade Committee. It’s especially powerful if your representative is on this committee, but, if not, you can still ask your Representative to talk to colleagues who are on the committee. Committee members and their contact information are included below as well.

PLEASE ACT TODAY to create a better future for Washington’s small-scale dairy producers!

Recently, deliberations in the Washington State legislature have occurred over a series of proposals to change the state’s dairy regulations to ensure the safety of raw milk. These discussions have shone a spotlight on some underlying issues about raw milk safety and the difficulties facing family farmers when they attempt to obtain licenses to legally sell milk. Unfortunately, the bills being considered do not provide solutions to these underlying issues. They attempt to ensure public safety by imposing punitive measures without improving the safety of raw milk or helping farmers become licensed dairies.

As these bills move through the legislature, an opportunity exists to influence legislators to amend the proposed laws so that real, meaningful change results from this process. In fact, some legislators have expressed an interest in finding out how they can help make this a reality.

It’s important to contact your State Senators and Representatives today about three bills that are before the legislature. The are: SB6377 and HB2598 (the “cow shares” bills) and HB3010 (Ensuring the Safety of Milk and Dairy Products).

NOTE: As of Monday 1/30/06 at 6:30 am, the bills on the WA legislative website do not reflect changes that have been made in the wording. HB3010 now is identical to a changed (substitute) version of SB6377. Substitute SB6377 is also not available on the website. The new versions could be posted at any time and will be identified as “substitute bills”

Tell your legislators these bills can be greatly improved if the following provisions are added to them (without these additions, these bills do not deserve their support):

a) Change the quality standards for Grade A raw milk to include testing for human pathogens as part of the regular testing performed by the Washington State Department of Agriculture of milk produced by licensed dairies;

b) Require regular on-farm testing of Grade A raw milk for E. coli 0157:H7 using new, low cost, testing technology that is highly sensitive and returns test results in only eight hours;

a) Defining a dairy license category for Micro-dairies, based on volume of output, that only sell milk directly to the end consumer;

b) Uncoupling the Micro-dairy from the facilities and equipment requirements of Grade A dairies and developing best management practices for “Micro-dairies.” These best practices should be developed with Micro-dairy stake-holders at the table. Because this process cannot be completed before the end of the current legislative session, but can be completed before the beginning of the next legislative session, current proposed legislation should authorize a statewide series of roundtable discussions involving agency representatives, producers and consumers to develop workable Micro-dairy standards. These Roundtables shall be coordinated by the Small Farm and Direct Marketing Program of the Washington State Dept. of Agriculture whose mandate is to identify and mitigate regulatory barriers facing small farms in Washington State;

c) Applying the raw milk pathogen testing requirements proposed above to Micro-dairies, including both on-farm and State laboratory testing to ensure the safety of milk produced by Micro-dairies;

Already, Micro-dairy stakeholders from around the state and around the country, including raw milk dairy farmers who have 1) worked with their own state milk inspection agencies to set up criteria for the production and handling of safe raw milk, and 2) have successfully supplied safe raw milk for a number of years without incident are working on developing specific proposals for the Micro-dairy best management practices mentioned above. This effort promises to make Washington State’s raw milk laws among the country’s best– ensuring consumer safety while enhancing the economic opportunities of Washington’s family farmers.

To read the proposed bills as they were originally introduced, follow these links:

WESTON A. PRICE FOUNDATION INFORMATION ALERT December 29, 2005
UPDATE ON THE RAW MILK SITUATION AT DEE CREEK FARM, WASHINGTON

1. Summary of Dee Creek Farm Raw Milk and e.coli 0157 H7 Outbreak by Chris Ostrander
On December 12, 2005 a quiet controversy in Washington State over the right of self-regulated Shareholder Dairies became a very noisy one when a cluster E. coli 0157:H7 illnesses were reported in the media to be associated with a Shareholder Dairy in Woodland, WA. The dairy is Dee Creek Farm, owned by Weston A. Price Foundation members Anita and Michael Puckett and daughter Summer Steenbarger. To date, although there seems to be a relationship between Dee Creek Farm shareholders and the reported cases, no E. coli was found in the milk that was privately sampled immediately after the outbreak was suspected (when a shareholder called the farm reporting an E. coli 0157:H7 illness). Additional private samples as well as samples taken by the Washington State Department of Agriculture are still being analyzed.
This event is really unfortunate. Some of those affected, mostly children, became very sick - some were hospitalized with serious complications. Two of the children are still in the hospital and showing signs of improvement. Everyone is hoping for their full recovery. Our thoughts also need to be with the families who run the farm in Woodland. They are careful, conscientious farmers for whom this crisis is devastating. They and their family with nine dependents are now living with the fear of losing their home and their farm that they have worked decades to acquire and improve. Despite the hold harmless clauses that each Dee Creek shareholder signed, it appears that the predatory personal injury law firm of Marler and Clark is trying to persuade a couple of shareholder families to sue Dee Creek Farm. Potential exists for the farm to be sued by medical insurance companies as well. This would be a tragedy as the farm family has not the resources to afford legal representation; also because it has not been established whether the contamination of the milk occurred on the farm or after the milk left the farm. A state veterinarian who was overseeing the State's sampling of milk from Dee Creek Farm and observing their milking protocol subsequent to the outbreak told the farmers that their cows and their practices were very clean. The farm family deserves our compassion and support. It is important to remember that illness resulting from E. coli contamination can and does occur in a wide variety of foods. This type of outbreak can strike any farmer, often through no fault of the farmer. E. coli 0157:H7 is considered by some to be a mutant organism for which we can blame its emergence on practitioners of genetic engineering and antibiotic- dependent industrial agriculture.

At press time, new developments are being reported hourly, but media coverage of the E. coli cluster in Southwest Washington has been pathetic. It has been a showcase of sensationalism and unprofessional journalism. Practically the only experts who have been quoted in media reports work either for state and county government agencies or the processed dairy industry and these experts are quick to condemn raw milk as often as they can. The media now report 18 E.coli cases related to the outbreak, yet as of this writing, there are only 7 confirmed cases where E. coli 0157:H7 has been isolated and not all of these individuals became sick and not all of the sick crank raw milk from Dee Creek Farm. The Clark County Health Department issued a press release that was circulated widely stating that milk samples from Dee Creek Farm had tested positive for E. coli, however, as of this writing, WSDA, who has the samples in their lab, has not completed the lab tests and has not released official findings even to the Clark County Health Department. This is a textbook case of the press acting as unquestioning mouthpiece for official information without any critical analysis or effort made to verify it. To its credit, at least one media outlet issued a retraction of its reporting of the errant Health Department press release when it learned of its inaccuracy. Now, word of possible new legislation, perhaps banning raw milk in Washington State and self- regulated Shareholder Dairies, is being reported.

E. coli is responsible for the illness cluster in Southwest Washington, not raw milk or Shareholder Dairies. This region of Washington State seems to be responsible for a good share of the state's E. coli outbreaks. It will be very important in the up-coming weeks and months for informed, active individuals to work at keeping the focus of debate on the true issues at hand and keep it from becoming a fear-based vendetta that threatens our freedom of choice in foods and our freedom to produce our own foods. Please keep alert for further developments and act on specific alerts that will be forthcoming.

Chrys Ostrander Chrysalis Farm @ Tolstoy Organic Micro-permaculture 33495 Mill Canyon Rd. Davenport, WA 99122 509-725-0610 chrys@thefutureisorganic.net
www.thefutureisorganic.net

2. From Dee Creek Farms:
***************************** December 27th, 2005, 11:50pm *****************************

Well, this past weekend has been a very busy one! Friday we spent the day in town, picking up gifts for the hospitalized families, and then heading to their homes. You all have been so very generous. It is amazing. We are all overwhelmed by the support that you all have shown! Here is the latest report on health:
Family A - 13yo was doing better, sleeping less, alert and active a bit more. The whole family ended up with some nasty colds, and spent Christmas home mostly in bed instead of with family, as planned. Bloodwork is heading in the right direction.

Family B - We spent some time with some of the family on Friday evening, and then a bit again tonight. It looks like 9yo is doing fairly well, tho' still in the hospital with daily dialysis and an inflamed pancreas. She has been eating a bit the past several days. Praise the Lord!

Family C - We just got an update yesterday that the little guy has urinated for the second time in two days, and is holding food down much better. The family did get a chance to head home for a couple of hours on Christmas, which I'm sure was such a comfort to everyone!

We are so very grateful that these kids are feeling better, and are praying that they will soon return to normal kidney function. Continue to pray that the healing will be complete. Family C are hoping to get home late this weekend.

We are still sending gifts their way, so you are still welcome and encouraged to drop anything off at your usual pick up location. Family C has requested that they do not receive money, but appreciate food and gifts very much. Food preparation is difficult for all of these families at this time, I am sure.

One of the Owners was working on setting up a Financial Aid Line to help these families. Someone affiliated with one of the hospitals (I believe) has set up a fund called the E. coli Kids Foundation Fund and it will help pay medical bills for the kids, especially for those who are uninsured. Michelle Laird is the spokeswoman for the fund and contributions will be accepted at any Wells Fargo Branch in Oregon and Washington. For information call 503-913-8343.

Even if these folks have insurance, these families have lost many weeks of work, tanks and tanks of gas, time, and plenty more! I will check into this Fund and see if it will be helping in financial ways beyond the medical expenses.
****

There are many things floating around right now, and I want to get you all up to speed on what I can right now:

First, we still have not heard back from the WSDA regarding any samples. We have left umerous messages, and will continue to do so. The last that WE heard from them was on Tuesday, the 20th, when Claudia let us know that there had not been e. coli confirmed in any samples, and that they were still testing. Nothing since then. Friday the Clark County DOH was supposed to retract that statement. Today the Capital Press released an article that says e. coli was confirmed, but not necessarily the right strain. Not sure if this is new news or old.

Also, I know that many of you have been well-informed about our Cease & Desist notice in August, but I do realize that some of the new folks here didn't receive the email that we sent out regarding it. The most important thing to note is that we did NOT receive an order. We responded to the letter within 15 days explaining that we did not indeed sell milk, that we were pursuing Grade A, and requested information on the new bottling and capping laws. We have not heard a word back from them since. Until now.

As many of you know, we have been pursuing a Grade A license the past few months. We have most of the stainless steel countertops and sinks now, and were getting ready to pour the floor. Plumbing is out there, but no electric yet. It was in the works.

There is also a lot of 'dirty farmer' stuff going around. We use stainless steel closed-system buckets, and wash udders two times with iodine prior to milking, then dip after with an anti-bacterial dip. Tho' we ask that you wash your own jars to your desired cleanliness, we do send them through the dishwasher when they arrive, before we pour.
We will be uploading a page on our website with all Facts, so that you can find these tid bits there, as we focus these emails on the issues at hand, and the updates to report.
****

I hope you all had a Merry Christmas! May this week be filled with love, peace, and joy. Please uphold the kids that are sick this week, as they spend their holidays away from home. We pray they can return soon! May every single thought, gift, and prayer be felt - and lighten even a bit of their load with each one.
Dee Creek Farm

Here's an article that ran in the Capital Press, the Pacific Northwest's agricultural newspaper of record, back on Sept. 16. It has caused quite a stir. There's more breaking news I will be sharing shortly. Stay Tuned!

WSDA cracks down on shareholder dairies

Department says it wants small dairy producers to become “legal”

By JAMIE HENNEMAN

In what is being deemed a public health concern, the Washington State Department of Agriculture has sent letters to several “shareholder” dairies to close their doors until they become licensed with the state.

A shareholder dairy, in essence, is where individuals buy “shares” of a farmer’s dairy herd, therefore being part-owners of the animal. The shareholders then pay an additional fee per gallon or half-gallon of milk in exchange for the farmer taking care of and milking the dairy herd. Most milk from shareholder dairies is also raw milk that is unpastuerized and non-homogenized.

Most shareholder dairies in Washington State operate under this two-party agreement without being licensed by the state department of agriculture. But WSDA Food Safety Inspector Claudia Coles says that arrangement could pose a public health risk.

“What we have are groups of shareholder dairies that are not having to adhere to any kind of health code and are essentially operating illegally,” Coles said.

Coles feels that shareholder dairies are subject to the same requirements as other dairies throughout the state and that their unique ownership arrangements do not exclude them from having to meet certain sanitation laws.

“We are not looking to put these shareholder dairies out of business, in fact, we want them to succeed. But we also want them to be legal,” Coles explained.

In order to become “legal” the shareholder dairies would have to obtain both a milk producer and a milk processor license from the state. In order to do this, shareholder dairies would have to meet sanitation standards like having concrete floors with drainage, washable walls, a separation of the milking area and the milk processing area and hot running water available for cleaning. This would make the shareholder dairies a “grade A” dairy in Washington State.

There is no fee for a milk producer license with the WSDA and the milk processor license costs $55 annually.

However, the cost of upgrading for most facilities is being estimated at $8,000 to $10,000. Shareholder dairyman George Clavert says this expense is too much.

“I am a retired man on six acres with six cows,” Calvert explained. “I am just trying to make a little extra money to supplement my income while providing the quality, raw milk product that the public is asking for.”

Calvert contends that his operation does not fall under the WSDA dairy regulations because he is not “selling” the milk to the public.

“What I have going here is an agreement between two people where my shareholders can come look at my operation and look me in the eye and determine if they believe in what I am doing here,” Calvert related. “There is no regulation that can replace the trust one person puts in another. The shareholders I work with have ownership in the cowherd and are simply paying me to care for the cows and milk them.
“I am not selling milk to the general public,” Calvert added.

However, the WSDA sees things differently.
According to a document they have released called the “Truth about raw milk sales”, the word “sale” in RCW 15.36.012 means “selling, offering for sale, holding for sale, preparing for sale, trading, bartering, offering as a gift as an inducement of sale of, and advertising for sale in any media.” According to that definition, the WSDA says shareholder dairies are selling milk to the public.

The WSDA contends that selling raw milk and shareholder dairies are both legal in the State of Washington if that diary meets Grade A standards.

“We are more than willing to work with dairymen on this issue and we recognize that there is a demand for this product,” Coles said. “Last year we even passed a law that makes hand-capping of milk legal. This makes selling milk in a container like a clean, half-gallon mason jar with a good sealing lid acceptable by state standards.
“We are not looking to put these dairies out of business, but it is our responsibility to address possible herd health and pathogen issues,” she added.

Although getting up to Grade A standards may be costly, dairyman Tim Lukens said he feels it is worth it.

“One of the advantages of being licensed with the state is that it allows you to purchase liability insurance for your farm,” he noted. “I know there are people who don’t want to spend the money to become Grade A, but without the liability insurance it would only take one person claiming they got sick from a shareholder dairy for that farmer to be in jeopardy of losing his entire farm.”

Lukens, who owns a 320-goat dairy in western Washington, became Grade A licensed two years ago in order to sell raw milk.

He also noted that shareholder dairies would have a smaller expense to become Grade A due to the fact that they are selling raw milk.

“At our dairy, we went ahead and purchased a pasteurizer which was approximately $18,000,” Lukens related. “But since shareholder dairies are neither pasteurizing nor homogenizing their milk, they are not looking at lots of additional equipment expenses.”

Another issue Lukens feels needs to be addressed in the shareholder dairies is the role of the dairymen as an employee.

“I understand in these agreements that the shareholders are paying the dairyman to care for their animal, but doesn’t that make him an employee? In which case, the dairyman would be subject to employment tax forms and things like L&I insurance,” Lukens said. “If I hire someone to work in my creamery, it will cost me two dollars and hour alone in L&I insurance with the state. So I think that part of the agreement needs to be addressed.”

But despite these arguments that seemingly work against shareholder dairies, Calvert says he feels there is an underlying issue in the shareholder dairy struggle.

“I don’t feel that this issue with shareholder dairies is really built on a public health concern,” Calvert related. “Because no matter what law is in effect, you can’t legislate personal responsibility and cleanliness. And one agency can’t determine what constitutes safety for everyone, as if people can’t make decisions for themselves.”

Calvert said it would cost him at least $8,000 to upgrade his facility that already has concrete floors and a separation from the milking area and the milk processing area.

“I have a hard time when the state wants a shareholder dairy with four cows to be regulated in the same way as a dairy that has 40,000 cows,” Calvert said. “By investing into a Grade A dairy, I would be setting myself up to go big time and I don’t want to do that. I’m just a little guy who wants to stay little.

“My shareholders basically want the right to be able to choose what they eat and how they eat it,” Calvert added. “The state shouldn’t make that decision for us.”

*******************

I think we have entered a new phase in our organizing efforts around the shareholder dairy thanks to the courageous stepping out of the folks at Dee Creek Farm in Woodland, WA. and Skamakaway, WA dairy farmer Lonnie Praski who were featured in a Portland Tribune article on shareholder dairies last Friday (and picked up by MS NBC http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8512313/). I've copied the article below for your convenience ("fair use" doctrine).

Got raw milk?

‘Cow sharers’ find the legal loopholes

By AMANDA PENNELLY Issue date: Fri, Jul 8, 2005

The [Portland] Tribune

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The owners of Dee Creek Farm in Woodland, Wash., thought they would build their customer base with free-range poultry, but it’s the raw milk drinkers that keep business ticking, thanks in part to the efforts of Lilly, one of three milk cows at the farm.

As health-conscious Portlanders gravitate toward more organically grown foods, some also are putting stock in raw cow milk.

Literally.

Growing numbers of local residents are buying shares of cows’ milk production and hauling raw, or unpasteurized, milk to their neighborhoods something the state said wouldn’t happen until … well, the cows came home.

But despite warnings from health officials, and Oregon dairy laws that prohibit the retail sale of unpasteurized milk to humans, many people are doing everything they can to get a hold of the raw stuff.

Because raw milk drinkers can’t legally buy it, they’re investing in the cow that produces it. Through “cow sharing,” people can buy a percentage of a cow’s milk production for a one-time fee any-where between $60 and $80, along with small monthly bottling and maintenance fees. By signing a contract with a dairy farmer, the cow shareholder then commits to consuming about a gallon a week per share. And much like Wall Street, shareholders who don’t want their percentage of cow’s milk can transfer back their shares to the farmers.

“We’ve only been doing it for a couple of months and we’ve already sold 40 shares,” said Woodland, Wash., dairy farmer Anita Puckett. About a third of her shareholders are from Portland. She said that one share equals one gallon of milk a week; she says her Jersey cows produce about 30 gallons a week. Other types of cows produce different amounts.

“I think one cow share averages out to $6.50 a gallon, but some farms charge a little more,” she said. “About 75 percent of our new customers are from our raw milk program. We thought our free-range poultry would be the big draw, but it’s the milk.”

The initial share fee usually can be sold back to the farmer, Puckett said, if a customer decides not to participate any longer.

But, she said, every farmer prices shares differently.

Cow-share programs, a growing national trend over the past decade, have only recently made their debut in Oregon. And the state Legislature hasn’t decided how it’s going to deal with the phenomenon.

“There are no specific guidelines for it at this point,” said Eric Paulson, supervisor of the food safety division at the Oregon Department of Agriculture. “There’s nothing against drinking milk from your own cow. It just comes down to determining what makes you an owner of a cow. We’re waiting to hear back from the attorney general on this one.”

Scotts Mills dairy farmer Barbara Spinola joked about her own cow-share program: “I’d like to see some of those shareholders come and haul away some of this manure once in a while, but that’s just my take. Cow sharing is probably a Pandora’s box, but for now it makes raw milk legal and available to the public, which is important.”

The retail sale of raw milk for human consumption has been illegal in Oregon since the state Legislature rewrote its dairy law four years ago. By law, only farmers with three cows or fewer can sell raw milk to Oregonians who physically go and pick up the milk themselves. Raw milk farmers are not allowed to deliver or advertise their product to consumers either in or out of state.

“The idea is to keep raw milk localized so it’s just for neighbors within a small farming community,” Paulson said. “This encourages people to see the farm and really educate themselves about how the milk is produced on a regular basis. It’s kind of a buyer-beware system.”

But these regulations leave most city dwellers, who are either unwilling or unable to drive a few hours a week to dairy farms, out of the raw milk loop.

Enter the loophole of cow sharing.

It’s not the usual milkman

“The cow-share program really saves us,” said Skamakaway, Wash., dairy farmer Lonnie Praski, who serves more than 100 shareholders 80 of whom reside in the Portland area. “We’re not technically selling the milk to customers, so legally that falls in our favor.”

Praski actually delivers his raw milk to drop-off points around the metro Portland area usually to shareholders who offer to chill the milk until neighboring shareholders can pick up their own gallons of milk.

Other local cow shareholders work it out differently, running carpools between families so that people take turns picking up the milk for one another, explained Claire Darling, a local chapter head for the Weston A. Price Foundation a national nonprofit behind a raw milk resource Web site and other raw milk-advocacy endeavors.

“Cow shares have made it abundantly more convenient for families. There are about five to eight families in any given carpool, and about four drop-off sites. The middlemen are just families who agree to have a bunch of coolers on their porch once a week. They’re not getting paid or handling the milk themselves.”

Darling estimated that she knows of at least 150 families involved with the cow-share program, and that most do some kind of carpooling pickup and drop-off scenario.

But it’s these middlemen practices that start to make people like the Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Paulson a little wary. Not to mention the fact that these deliveries and drop-offs start to sound a whole lot like small-scale retail sales to consumers. In some cases the trade crosses state lines, which would not be legal in Oregon save for the cow-share loophole, Paulson said. The theory is that cow sharing eliminates the consumer, which means everyone involved is technically a cow owner.

Cow shares definitely make the legality of raw milk a little fuzzy, agreed Jim Pressley, Washington Department of Agriculture’s food safety program assistant manager. Washington, like Oregon, has no specific laws against cow sharing. “I can’t say that there are specific laws yet that address cow shareholders getting milk across state lines. It gets confusing to navigate because of the ‘owners’ and where they actually live.”

“The idea in Oregon is to make it so the consumer can’t help but see the cows and the product they’re buying,” Paulson said. “When other people start getting involved in that dynamic it can be dangerous.”

Milk temperatures, for example, should stay below 45 degrees. If milk is sitting out in a cooler in someone’s backyard or being transported in the backseat of well-intentioned carpoolers, there is an added risk of bacteria growing in milk that hasn’t been properly chilled, Paulson said.

Raw milk drinkers say, ‘Wow’

Woodland, Wash., dairy farmer Puckett also is skeptical about letting her shareholders act as liaisons for other shareholders. “Most people want to see the farmer eye to eye and know what’s going on. It keeps us accountable. I’d be a little uncomfortable about drop-off places because it creates an unnecessary cloak of secrecy. We want customers to come and see us and be their own health inspectors.”

But Puckett understands how difficult it can be for urbanites to legally obtain raw milk themselves. Even when cow shares are available, most farmers like Puckett do not offer drop-off services, which makes middleman deliveries seem less like a health concern and more like a godsend.

“Since milk is so hard to find and the demand is so big, people compromise some of that personal and educational relationship with their farmers,” she said.

Portland resident Dagmar Carstensen has been drinking raw milk for a year without making a trip up to see her bovine supplier. “I would go out to the farm myself if I could, but it’s a scheduling problem in my case. So I have one of my neighbors deliver it to me.”

Her milk delivery happens courtesy of Portland resident Jennifer Pultz, who also has no qualms about the arrangement.

“I’m doing this for health reasons,” explained Pultz, who drives an hour and a half every week to Molalla to pick up milk for herself and others in her neighborhood. “Raw milk is superior nutritionally; it’s worth the extra effort to get it. Since I’m going up there already, it’s no problem to pick it up for other people.”

Pultz said she personally feels more comfortable with her decision to drink raw milk because she visits her dairy farmer regularly and knows how the small dairy operates. “When I first started (drinking raw milk) I was nervous. But I told myself that if I could find a dairy I was comfortable with, I was going to stick with it.”

According to Dr. Bill Keene, senior epidemiologist at the Oregon Department of Health, raw milk drinkers like Pultz should still be a little nervous.

“Let’s just say that raw milk is good for business in my line of work,” said Keene, who tracks public outbreaks of illness for a living.

Dozens of infectious diseases have been linked to the consumption of raw milk, including salmonellosis, campylobacteriosis and one of the more deadly strains of E. coli that can cause kidney failure and sometimes death, according to Keene. The E. coli toxin basically destroys the internal organs from the inside out.

But despite the research, many raw milk drinkers believe that raw milk is still nutritionally superior to its pasteurized counterpart. “You can’t put raw milk into words. ‘Wow’ is the only way to describe the taste. Once you drink it your body comes alive. I use raw milk to ferment a lot of my foods, and this puts good enzymes back into my body. It helps with digestion, builds stronger immune systems there are so many resources you can go to that talk about this,” raw milk drinker Carstensen said.

No studies have demonstrated a significant difference in nutritional value between raw and pasteurized milk, according to Oregon State University’s extension dairy specialist Lisbeth Goddick.

A market awaits legalization

It is not clear how long cow sharing will go on before the state weighs in on its legality, said dairy farmer Puckett.

“There’s definitely a rumor in the air that the cow-share program will be challenged. But the demand is so big that at some point raw milk is going to have to be acceptable within state regulations,” she said.

Dairy farmers doing cow-share programs are not trying to be outlaws, said farmer Praski. “People just want freedom of choice, and nutrition is a choice,” he said.

Sally Fallon, an author and raw milk guru in Washington, D.C., believes that eventually retail stores will push for the legalization of raw milk once they realize how much the consumer market is growing. “Cow shares are helping raw milk farms get started, but eventually retailers will figure out what they’re missing,” she said.

Washington State already allows stores to sell raw milk in some of its counties, Pressley said. And that state recently passed a law, effective July 1, that allows for the retail sale of hand-capped milk bottles, which will help smaller farms work toward getting their licenses, he said.

But Paulson said Oregon is still uncertain about licensing raw milk farms. According to him, there were four licensed retail raw milk dairies in Oregon that followed state sanitary and regulatory requirements in the early 1990s.

“In spite of their compliance, two of the four dairies had outbreaks of E. coli, and a few of the cases resulted in hemolytic uremic syndrome, requiring the victims to go on dialysis due to kidney failure,” he said.

But allowing for the sale of raw milk to the general public whether through cow-share programs or retail stores is inevitable, according to Mike McAfee, founder of Organic Pastures Dairy. He’s already found a way to get around Oregon’s law on raw milk retail sales, and uses his 320 milking cows to stock shelves over the last year at local Whole Foods Markets and cooperatives with raw milk … for pets. Or at least that’s what the label says.

“The neat thing about the law is that it can be interpreted in many ways. The state of Oregon understood that there was a loophole by putting a pet sticker on the product. And there’s no regulation that you can’t eat pet food, either. I am a revolutionist in this, and I won’t overlook any loophole that will get the milk out there.”

But many Portlanders still prefer the smaller, more personal dairy experience that cow sharing provides. “We have to keep in the forefront that personal connection to the land and the farmers,” raw milk drinker Darling said. “The key is to keep it small, while still serving the demand.”

For now, cow sharing appears to be working for most people who have an interest in raw milk.

“We’ll keep doing what we’re doing until someone tells us it’s illegal, and then we’ll do everything we can to get legal,” Puckett said.

Keene is convinced that raw milk is a nonissue for most Oregonians: “There are two kinds of people: those who drink raw milk and try to make some kind of statement, and those who don’t care about raw milk at all.”

In the meantime, local raw milk drinkers, however marginalized, are happy to have their fix.

“I believe in it, but I’m not going to stand up on a soapbox about it,” said Vancouver, Wash., resident Jim Goodin. “I just pick it up for myself and my friends and family. It’s been good to me.”

Please join a growing up-swelling of Washingtonians and demand the official recognition of the private, unregulated shareholder dairy. To get involved, contact Chrys Ostrander at:

More information on the benefits of raw milk, the detriments of pasteurized milk, the history of the raw milk movement and efforts to defame raw milk through misinformation, go to

The Future is Organic Raw Dairy Choice Campaign

Breaking News (in order latest first)

Breaking News
(in order latest first)