On April 30, Governor Greg Gianforte signed Senate Bill 199 (SB 199), also known as the Montana Local Food Choice Act, into law. Senator Greg Hertz (R-Polson) sponsored the bill. The new law goes into effect immediately.

SB 199 allows the unregulated intrastate sale of most homemade foods from producers to informed end consumers including all raw dairy products if the producer keeps no more than “five lactating cows, 10 lactating goats or 10 lactating sheep” on the farm for the production of milk. There are limited testing requirements for raw milk producers. Producers can sell poultry under the Act if they slaughter and process no more than 1,000 birds during a calendar year and comply with federal recordkeeping requirements.

Livestock producers and homemade food producers may sell “meat and meat products processed at a state-licensed establishment or a federally approved meat establishment” but only if they have obtained a temporary food establishment permit.

Producers must inform the end consumer that the homemade food they are selling has not been licensed, permitted, certified, packaged, labeled nor inspected. Sales and delivery under SB 199 can take place at a farm, ranch, home office, “traditional community social event” (the term includes farmers markets) as defined by the bill, or another location agreed to between the producer and/or the producer’s agent and the informed end consumer.

The bill states that a state or local government agency cannot require “licensure, permitting, certification, packaging, labeling, or inspection that pertains to the preparation, serving, use, consumption, delivery, or storage of homemade food or a homemade food product….” SB 199 does not prevent a state or local health officer from inspecting a producer selling homemade food if the “officer is investigating a complaint based on an illness or an outbreak suspected to be directly related to that homemade food or homemade food product.”

Given his business background, Hertz is one of the last people you would expect to sponsor a bill like SB 199, having owned and operated grocery stores the past 30 years. He sponsored a similar bill as a state representative in 2017, but the legislation died in the Senate after passing in the House. A difference this time around was that Montanans have a legislature and governor that are more in line with the “live and let live” liberty-minded views of its people; a supporter of the bill spoke at the House committee hearing on SB 199 about rugged individualism and a culture of self-sufficiency being part of the Montana way of life. In the past, Montana has had a government that favored a regulatory scheme closer to California’s than neighboring Wyoming’s. Hertz commented that a cottage food bill which passed into law in 2015 was fifty pages long.

Hertz did a masterful job moving the bill through the legislature. There was strong opposition to the bill from organizations such as the Montana Milk Producers Association, the Montana Department of Livestock (DOL), the Montana Medical Association, the Montana Veterinary Medical Association, public health officials and several sustainable agriculture nonprofits. If someone had only seen the committee hearings and known nothing else about SB 199, it would have been easy for them to believe the bill wasn’t going to pass. Hertz was able to overcome the opposition by successfully lobbying committee members one on one until he had the votes he needed. He characterized SB 199 as a jobs bill, and that message helped carry the day. The support for the bill eventually overwhelmed opponents. The state legislative website tallies up for each Bill the proponents and opponents who contact it; over 1,500 people contacted the site In support of SB 199 making it the fourth most popular bill this session—only 53 opposed.

The most contentious part of the bill was the legalization of raw dairy sales. Something proponents had in their favor was that SB 199 marked the fifth consecutive session a raw milk bill was before the legislature and at least some legislators were getting tired of having to consider the issue over and over again. Hertz said during the House committee hearing on the bill, “We need to put the raw milk discussion behind us.” He pointed out that in states like Wyoming and Maine that have also adopted food freedom bills (in Maine at the local level with 80 towns passing food sovereignty ordinances), there hasn’t been a single foodborne illness outbreak even though there is no limit on the herd size in either state. One other factor in favor of legal raw milk sales was testimony at the committee hearings that only 45 Grade A dairies remain in Montana.

In addition to Hertz, much credit for the passage of SB 199 is due Chris Rosenau, an activist from the Bitterroot who has spent thousands of uncompensated hours working for legalization of raw milk sales in Montana. In 2017 Rosenau was instrumental in the state government’s adoption of a policy allowing the distribution of raw milk through Montana securities law. She has worked for legalization of raw milk sales since that time and was able to gather substantial support for SB 199 through her work for the advocacy group Raw Milk Montana.

DOL tried to kill the bill by posting a fiscal note claiming the meat and poultry provisions as originally written in SB 199 would cost Montana its state meat inspection program and over $1 million a year in funding from USDA. Hertz amended the meat and poultry language, successfully addressing that concern. DOL had some of the more onerous requirements in the country for producers processing poultry on the farm under the federal 1,000-bird exemption. The number of farmers processing under that exemption should increase significantly.

With the accelerating deterioration of quality in the conventional food supply, passage of bills like SB 199 is becoming more important. In his testimony on the bill before the House Human Affairs Committee, Hertz said, “We have traded our health, our food security, our local economy for highly processed foods, all in the name of food safety,”

When it comes to health, food safety, food security, and local economies, locally produced food is superior to industrial food in every respect. Congratulations to the people of Montana for the passage of SB 199.

Originally published on 10 May 2021 under title, “Montana Food Freedom Bill Now Law.”

The post Montana Local Food Choice Act Now Law appeared first on Real Milk.

One of the more underhanded attempts to ban raw milk took place in the last session of the Illinois Legislature. In January, Rep. Daniel J. Burke introduced House Bill 4036 (HB 4036), a bogus bill to amend the “Restroom Access Act” by replacing the word “the” with the same word “the” in one line of the current statute: “This Act may be cited as the Restroom Access Act.” On March 14, Burke filed Amendment #1 to change the language of HB 4036 to ban the sale of raw milk in Illinois.

The current Illinois dairy statute states, “After the effective date of this Act, no person shall sell or distribute, offer to sell or distribute any milk or milk product for human use or consumption unless such milk or milk product has been pasteurized and has been produced and processed in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Department.”

The term “sell or distribute for use or consumption” means “to sell or distribute to a person for human use or consumption and not for processing or resale in any form. The pasteurization requirement of this Section shall not be applicable to milk produced in accordance with Department rules and regulations if sold or distributed on the premises of the dairy farm.”

Burke’s amendment eliminated this last sentence, turning dozens of Illinois raw milk producers into outlaws. Amendment #1 went unnoticed by raw milk supporters until the day before a March 26 hearing on HB 4036 for the House Human Services Committee. When Wes King, executive director of the Illinois Stewardship Alliance, sent out the alert on the bill, hundreds of raw milk consumers submitted “witness slips” in opposition and sent emails to committee members but the bill still passed out of committee.

The opposition to HB 4036 was so great, however, that the House leadership sent the bill back to the Human Services Committee for further amending. HB4036 eventually died in committee. Burke completely changed his position, stating, “I am convinced of the virtue of the thousands of communications I’ve received, that natural dairy should continue to be made available to our society. If people believe this product is beneficial, I am not going to interfere with that.”

According to Burke, an official from the Cook County Health Department asked him to introduce the bill. The effort was backed by an organization called the Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium (NIPHC) which consists of local health departments including Cook County. The NIPHC distributed a “fact” sheet on raw milk that reportedly convinced a majority of the House Health Services Committee to vote for HB 4036.

Since 2012 the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) has been drafting burdensome regulations to govern the production and sale of raw milk. IDPH has been claiming that it didn’t want to ban the sale of raw milk, just regulate it to protect the public health. Whether IDPH was working with NIPHC to push the bill, at a minimum IDPH knew about HB 4036 and did nothing to stop it. The HB 4036 debacle has further eroded what little trust raw milk supporters had in the department.

[include content_id=663]

The post Illinois Attempted Raw Milk Ban appeared first on Real Milk.

Washington, DC –April 10, 2014–(GlobeNewswire)– A proposed bill in Illinois banning the sale and distribution of natural or “raw” milk, is not going anywhere this session after legislators heard from “thousands” of natural milk proponents. The restriction, which was introduced as an amendment to an unrelated bill, would have banned the sale and distribution of raw milk in Illinois. The sponsor, Daniel Burke (D-23rd district), chose not to move the bill out of committee after legislators were inundated with calls and emails from concerned Illinois citizens.

Today, The Weston A. Price Foundation issued a point-by-point rebuttal of Illinois public health official claims that a ban was warranted. See Response to the Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium, Inc. on the Campaign for Real Milk website.

“I am convinced, by virtue of the thousands of communications I’ve received, that natural dairy should continue to be made available to our society. If people believe this product is beneficial, I am not going to interfere with that,” stated Burke. Known in Springfield for his record in support of farmers, Burke claims, “It was never my intention to put any restriction on the farmers.”

Under current Illinois law, farmers can sell an unlimited amount of raw milk on the farm without a permit. And, according to those active in opposing the amendment, that is how they would prefer to keep the law.

“When I am able to purchase this healthful product within Illinois, I am able to support farmers I know and trust,” says Vicki McConnell, a Lee County resident and active supporter of access to natural milk. “Supporting our local economy is as important to me as accessing healthy products for my family. I am grateful that the legislators see the sense in not imposing additional restrictions on this voluntary exchange for food.”

After the amendment was introduced, consumers and farmers alike rallied to inform elected officials about the benefits of natural milk. Farmers brought samples of the milk to the state capitol. Representatives learned about the importance of this local product with some even opting to try fresh milk for the first time. Several allegedly said it was the best milk they’ve ever had.

Burke says he was asked to introduce the amendment by a Cook County Health Department official who was concerned with not having regulations in place for off-farm sales and distribution. Burke notes that he learned a lot from the people who contacted his office expressing their concerns.

“With the increasing popularity of the beverage, including legislation introduced on the national level, it just doesn’t make sense to interfere with the direct relationship between the people who produce this food and the people who want it,” says Burke. “I have no intention of moving forward with this bill. I would like to see the law remain as it is and I appreciate all those who took the time to contact me with their opinions.”

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education nonprofit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Based in Washington, DC, WAPF is the leading advocacy group promoting broader consumer access to safety-tested raw milk. Contact info@westonaprice.org or visit realmilk.com and westonaprice.org.

Kimberly Hartke, WAPF Publicist 703-860-2711, press@westonaprice.org

Liz Reitzig, Farm Food Freedom Coalition, 301-807-5063, lizreitzig@gmail.com

The post Illinois Legislators Honor Right of Consumers to Buy Farm Fresh Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

Response to the Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium, Inc.
Prepared by the Weston A. Price Foundation

In a letter dated March 24, 2014, the Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium, urged support of HB 4036 HA1, which would ban the thriving raw milk business in the state of Illinois. The Consortium provided the following “Supporting Facts,” followed by our response.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: The Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration claim that raw milk may contain a wide variety of harmful bacteria—including Salmonella, E. Coli O157:H7, Listeria, Campylobacter and Brucella—that may cause illness and possibly death.

WAPF RESPONSE: The fact is, ALL foods may contain these bacteria. Actually, there has never been a case of listeria, the most dangerous of these pathogens, from raw fluid milk. If the state of Illinois banned all foods that could contain these harmful bacteria, there would be no food to eat in the state of Illinois (and that includes pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products).

Government statistics show us that the rate of illness from raw milk is very low. According to a 2007 CDC survey, about 3 percent of the US population consumes raw milk; in 2014, this is at least 10 million people. CDC data indicated that there are approximately 50 illnesses associated (but not proven) from raw milk every year. (The majority of these are mild, and this number is probably over-reported.) Thus, using government data, we can show that the rate of illness from raw milk is .000005 per year. So there is no reason to single out raw milk as an inherently dangerous food. Many foods allowed on the market have a much greater rate of illness.

Unlike other foods, raw milk contains enzymes and other compounds that kill bad bacteria (and support the growth of good bacteria). No other food contains this protective system; these components are destroyed by pasteurization. Under very dirty conditions, this anti-microbial system can be overwhelmed; but in situations of reasonable cleanliness and good health of the cows, these enzymes ensure that raw milk is a safe food for children and adults.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: Because of the potential for serious illness, federal law prohibits dairies from distributing raw milk across states lines in final package form (packaged so that it can be consumed), meaning that raw milk can only be distributed across state lines if it is going to be pasteurized or used to make aged (over 60 days) cheese before being sold to consumers

WAPF RESPONSE: There are two bills in Congress at the moment to overturn this ban; but in fact, raw milk is pouring across state lines because the law is unenforceable. Plenty of raw milk is coming into the state of Illinois from other states. If Illinois were to ban the sale of raw milk, it would merely put a lot of Illinois family farms out of business and enrich raw milk farmers in other states.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: Each state makes its own laws about selling raw milk within the borders of the state; in about half of states, sale of raw milk directly to consumers is illegal, and in the remaining states, raw milk may be sold directly to consumers.

WAPF RESPONSE: Forty out of fifty states allow the distribution of raw milk through sales or cow-share programs. Of these, ten allow the sale of raw milk in retail establishments. There are more than two dozen current state bills that would liberalize the distribution of raw milk on the state level. The proposed legislation in Illinois is retrograde, going in the opposite direction of the increased support for raw milk sales. This is a market that is growing at 25 percent per year, and the proposed legislation would take this away from Illinois farmers and give it to farmers in other states.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: States that allow the legal sale of raw milk for human consumption have more than twice the rate of raw milk-related outbreaks of illness than states that do not allow the sale of raw milk.

WAPF RESPONSE: This “fact” was arrived at by defining an “outbreak” as two or more people. When people do get sick from raw milk (which is rare), the outbreak is usually limited to a few people. When people get sick from pasteurized milk, it often affects thousands. A recent outbreak in a California prison due to pasteurized milk sickened over fifteen hundred people. Outbreaks from pasteurized milk in the 1980s sickened tens of thousands. What matters is the NUMBER of people getting sick, not the number of outbreaks, and far more people have become sick from pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products than from raw milk

And what is key is the number of deaths. There have never been any deaths from raw milk, but dozens from pasteurized milk and pasteurized milk products. Three people in Massachusetts died from pasteurized milk in 2007. And since 2007, about one dozen people have died from pasteurized cheese.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: The rate of outbreaks caused by raw or unpasteurized milk and products made from it was 150 times greater than outbreaks linked to pasteurized milk, according to a study reviewing dairy product outbreaks from 1993 to 2006 in all 50 states, published by CDC in March 2012.

WAPF RESPONSE: As stated above, by looking at “outbreaks” rather than absolute numbers, CDC was able to generate a large comparative number. Also, this study compared “raw milk AND raw milk products” to just “pasteurized milk” and not pasteurized milk products. Most of the problems with raw milk come from unregulated soft Mexican-style cheeses. And there have been many outbreaks and a few deaths from pasteurized cheese.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: Among dairy product-associated outbreaks reported to CDC between 1998 and 2011 in which investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw, 79% were due to raw milk or cheese; from 1998 through 2011, 128 outbreaks due to consumption of raw milk or raw milk products were reported to CDC, which resulted in 2,384 illnesses, 284 hospitalizations and 2 deaths.

WAPF RESPONSE: Again, by reporting outbreaks rather than actual numbers, CDC can create the impression that raw milk is causing a disproportionate number of illnesses. The two deaths were from unregulated soft Mexican-style cheese; there has never been a death from raw milk.

Note that this study only involved “outbreaks. . . in which investigators reported whether the product was pasteurized or raw.” In most outbreaks involving pasteurized dairy, investigators do NOT report that the milk is pasteurized; they just say “milk” or “cheese.”

Also, when a person goes to the hospital with a food-borne illness, the first question asked is “Did you drink raw milk?” If the person answers yes, he or she is immediately admitted and no further questions are asked. Thus, many illnesses attributed to raw milk are likely coming from other sources.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION:  It is important to note that a substantial proportion of the raw milk-associated disease burden falls on children; among the 104 outbreaks from 1998-2011 with information on patients’ ages available, 82% involved at least one person younger than 20 years old.

WAPF RESPONSE: This statement does not give us absolute numbers of young people and adults. We do not know the numbers involved in the “outbreaks” and we do not know the percentage of young and adults that were afflicted.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION:  The number of reported cases determined to be outbreak-related likely represents a small proportion of the actual number of illnesses associated with raw or unpasteurized milk consumption

WAPF RESPONSE:  On the contrary, the number of raw milk illnesses is likely OVER reported. If any person drinking raw milk gets sick, that illness is blamed on raw milk without further investigation.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: The American Academy of Pediatrics approves a ban on the sale of raw or unpasteurized milk and milk products throughout the United States.

WAPF RESPONSE:  The American Academy of Pediatrics also recommends a low-fat diet for growing children, a policy that has had disastrous results, causing an epidemic of disease in our children. The AAP also promotes overuse of antibiotics for childhood illnesses. The AAP approves a vaccination policy that gives 36 shots to a child before the age of 5, starting at 2 days old. Why should we trust the AAP when they are recommending such dangerous health policies for our children?

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION: Illinois law prohibits the retail sale of raw milk, but allows on-farm sales with untracked distribution

WAPF RESPONSE: This policy has worked very well to date, allowing access to raw milk for those who want it, good income for Illinois family farms, and little burden on the state bureaucracy.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION:  Unpasteurized dairy products may currently be obtained in Illinois through private food clubs, co-ops or under a communal program to purchase shares in dairy cows (i.e. cow shares, a scheme used to circumvent state restrictions on commercial sales of non-pasteurized dairy products).

WAPF RESPONSE: If Illinois bans raw milk sales, all the raw milk that the citizens of Illinois consume will come from private food clubs, co-ops or cow share programs from neighboring states. All the ban will do is hurt Illinois farmers.

CONSORTIUM ASSERTION:  Human consumption of non-pasteurized dairy products cannot be considered safe under any circumstances.

WAPF RESPONSE: Humans have been consuming raw dairy products to great advantage for thousands of years; raw cheese is legal and available in every state and throughout Europe. Is the state of Illinois seriously considering banning raw cheese sales also?

The state of Illinois needs to ask why more and more people in the state are consuming raw milk. The answer is the superior taste; better digestibility and numerous proven health benefits including protection against asthma, allergies and eczema, improved growth in children, strong bones and teeth, and improvement of serious conditions such as IBS, Crohn’s disease, attention deficit disorder and autism. Very often raw milk is the ONLY solution to failure to thrive in children.

For more information:

• http://www.westonaprice.org/press/new-studies-confirm-raw-milk-a-low-risk-food
• http://www.westonaprice.org/press/cdc-cherry-picks-data-to-make-case-against-raw-milk
• http://www.westonaprice.org/press/government-data-proves-raw-milk-safe

The Weston A. Price Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. info@westonaprice.org

The post Response to the Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium, Inc. appeared first on Real Milk.

Show of Opposition Urgently Needed to Stop Attempt to Ban Illinois Raw Milk

The Illinois House of Representatives is considering a ban that will entirely outlaw raw milk for human consumption. Currently, Illinois raw milk sales are allowed if sold directly to consumers on the farm under production regulations. A proposed amendment to HB 4036, which addresses “The Grade A Pasteurized Milk and Milk Products Act,” would remove the clause that allows for on-farm sales of Illinois raw milk.

Section 8 of “Section 5. The Grade A Pasteurized Milk and Milk Products Act” reads: “After the effective date of this Act, no person shall sell or distribute, offer to sell or distribute any milk or milk product for human use or consumption unless such milk or milk product has been pasteurized and has been produced and processed in accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Department.”

The proposed amendment would remove the following clause, “The pasteurization requirement of this Section shall not be applicable to milk produced in accordance with Department rules and regulations if sold or distributed on the premises of the dairy farm.”

The Bill passed out of committee on March 26, 2014. The House is in session and on the floor right now. The Bill is waiting to be called up for another reading and short debate.

If you live in Illinois and oppose the amendment to this Bill, please voice your opposition to the Bill’s Chief Sponsor, Rep. Daniel Burke of Chicago, or one of your other State Legislators ASAP. You can find your representatives’ contact information here or here. Call or email them to share the nutritional and economic benefits of continuing to allow the on-farm sales of raw milk.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Sneak Attack on Illinois Raw Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

The Dairy Work Group was created in an attempt to create an open dialogue between state dairy farmers and health officials in hopes of finding compromise for new raw milk regulations. In November, some of the raw milk producers involved with the group expressed concerns that their views were being ignored or misrepresented by the committee.

The November 4^th meeting turned out to be the group’s last, reports Donna OShaughnessy, one of the pro-raw milk members of the Dairy Work Group, on her blog. OShaughnessy explains that she received an email from Molly Lamb of the IDPH on November 21 that the group was being disbanded and participants should submit their final comments on the proposed regulations by December 2.

The disbanding came as a surprise; OShaughnessy writes that “at no time during the [November] meeting did Molly or Steve tell us that it was our last meeting.” The group was in the middle of discussing a two-tier dairy program for the state and was having significant disagreements over the Tier 1 portion.

“We did not discuss any requirements for Tier 2, as we had said many, many times that we would not move forward until Tier 1 rules were agreed…Obviously all the work we’ve done the last few months is just the beginning,” writes OShaughnessy.

The Dairy Work Group began as an opportunity for people on both sides of this controversial issue to find compromise, and quickly proved to be an uphill battle. Now, the future of raw milk regulations in Illinois remains uncertain.

Read the rest of Donna OShaughnessy’s side of the story here.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  http://www.westonaprice.org/lab

The post Illinois Dairy Work Group Disbanded appeared first on Real Milk.

The Dairy Work Group was created in an attempt to regulate the state’s raw milk dairy farmers and consumers. The group is a subcommittee of the Food Safety Advisory Committee, which reports to the head of the IDPH. Unfortunately, since the creation of the subcommittee, several members of the Illinois raw milk community have become increasingly concerned that their views are being either ignored or misrepresented by the committee – mainly, that meeting notes inaccurately reflect discussions and agreements from previous meetings.

In an attempt to rectify these inaccuracies, several raw milk producers presented a letter at the November 4, 2013 meeting that clarified their recommendations for Tier 1 classification of raw milk, which included:

1)   Voluntary registration by the raw milk farmer with the Illinois Department of Public Health.

2)   Posting signs on farms where raw milk is sold stating that the milk is not pasteurized.

3)   Allows sales of raw milk only on the farm, direct to consumers with consumers providing their own containers.

“Any other suggested requirements for a raw milk farm under a Tier 1 designation such as inspections, limited sales amounts, mandatory testing, required permits, etc., have not been agreed to by those of us who have signed this letter.” They also requested that a copy of the letter be attached to the meeting minutes, so as to avoid further confusion.

Read more about the Dairy Work Group’s 2013 progress and plight here.

The Campaign for Real Milk is a project of the nutrition education non-profit, The Weston A. Price Foundation. Donate to help fund research into the benefits of nutrient dense foods.  http://www.westonaprice.org/lab

The post Illinois Raw Milk Producers Concerned their Views are Misrepresented in Dairy Work Group appeared first on Real Milk.

Update, Winter 2015
Illinois

After nearly three years of working on raw milk regulation, the Illinois Department of Health (IDPH) still has more work to do. On August 11th the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulations (JCAR), a legislative body that has the final say on approving proposed rules, voted to prohibit the filing of IDPH’s proposed rules with the Secretary of State—pro- posed regulations do not become law unless they are filed with the Secretary. The rules IDPH submitted to JCAR were an amended version of proposed regulations the department issued in September 2014. Over seven hundred people had submitted comments on the original version; nearly all of them opposed.

For over thirty years, IDPH had a successful policy of allowing unlicensed on-farm sales; there was not a single case of foodborne illness legitimately attributed to a raw milk producer operating under the policy. (See Wise Traditions Summer and Fall 2013 issues for background.)

Through the proposed regulations, the department is trying to implement a two-tier licensing system where producers who meet requirements outlined in the proposed rules can obtain a license to sell raw milk on the farm while those who meet Grade A requirements, including expensive physical facility requirements, can deliver and sell raw milk to off-farm customers. The proposed rules would require herdshare operations to meet the Grade A mandates.

Both raw milk proponents and opponents opposed IDPH’s amended version of the rules. Even raw milk producers who were willing to submit to licensing and inspection thought the sanitary standards in the proposed regulations were too broad and subject to abuse by inspectors. The Northern Illinois Public Health Consortium—which had unsuccessfully pushed legislation to ban raw milk in 2014 (see Wise Traditions Summer 2014 issue)—and other public health organizations opposed IDPH’s amended version of the rules, mainly on the grounds that they would allow the retail sale of raw milk in population centers instead of just on the farm, which is what the original version called for. JCAR’s notice prohibiting filing of the rules stated, “This rulemaking has not achieved an adequate balance between the State’s role in protecting the public health and its mission to avoid unduly burdensome regulations on small business. JCAR finds that adoption of this rulemaking in its current form would not be in the public interest.”

Update, Winter 2014
Illinois

On September 5th, the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) issued proposed regulations governing raw milk sales and production; regulations that a number of raw milk producers believe would put them out of business. (See Wise Traditions Winter 2013 issue for more background.) So many people submitted comments opposing the rules (over 700 submitted comments with the overwhelming majority in opposition) that IDPH extended the comment period on them from 45 to 90 days.

For over 30 years unlicensed on-farm sales of raw milk have been legal by government policy; the rules IDPH proposed to replace the policy would reduce consumer access to the raw milk produced in Illinois by creating an arbitrary and overreaching regulatory scheme that would make it more difficult for dairy farmers to make a living. The proposed rules would;

• Require a raw milk producer with even just one cow or goat to have a permit and would be subject to regular inspections and testing.
• Prohibit unlicensed producers from giving away milk to guests at their farm.
• Prohibit herdshares and the distribution of raw milk through community subscription agriculture (CSAs) unless the producer is in compliance with all requirements for Grade A dairies which produce raw milk for pasteurization – a financially impossible standard for just about all shareholder and CSA dairies. Even if a dairy could afford to meet the Grade A standards it could still only distribute to shareholders and CSA members on the farm. IDPH issued the herdshare regulation despite Illinois statute recognizing the legality of dairy livestock boarding agreements.
• Contain a number of sanitary standards that can be arbitrarily applied against producers to shut them down when there is no threat to public health; for example: “the flanks, udders, bellies and tails of all lactating animals should be free from visible dirt” and “all milking equipment should be stored in a dust-tight room.”
• Intrude on the farmer-consumer relationship by requiring farmers to maintain records of each transaction with the customer, name and address, to issue “Department approved consumer awareness information with each sale or transaction” and to provide “instructions for the consumer to notify the local health department for the area in which the consumer resides of a consumer complaint or suspected foodborne illness.” There isn’t any other food whose producers are required to do all this.

With the comment period now being over the next step in the rule-making process was for the proposed rules to go to the legislature for consideration by the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulations (JCAR). JCAR has the power to reject the rules. Illinois law provides for an official comment period where people can submit comments once the rules are before the committee but hundreds of those opposing the regulations had gotten an early jump on the process and had contacted members of JCAR telling them to kill the rules. JCAR will likely be taking up the rules sometime in the first half of 2015. The goal for raw milk supporters is to end the rule-making process in the committee and have the state government stick with the policy that has been successful in protecting access to locally produced raw milk since the early 1980s.

Update, Winter 2013
Illinois

The Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) had been leading a dairy workgroup to develop recommendations for raw milk regulations (see original post from Summer 2013 and Fall 2013 update below  for background). IDPH  officials have disbanded the workgroup and are moving on to the next step in the rulemaking process.

In a November 21 email sent to the members of the workgroup, Molly Lamb, chief of IDPH’s Division of Food, Drugs and Dairies stated that the workgroup would be releasing a “summary of comprehensive recommendations” that would be used by IDPH to write proposed raw milk regulations. In her email, Lamb included a draft of summary recommendations from IDPH that were far different from what raw milk producers and consumers in the workgroup had been proposing.

The raw milk advocates who comprised a majority of the workgroup had been supporting a two-tier system in which one tier would allow unlicensed, unregulated on-farm sales of raw milk and another tier would support licensed sales off the farm; the IDPH recommendations call for inspection, licensing and testing on both tiers. The department’s recommendations would also prohibit distribution of raw milk through a herdshare agreement, buyers club or CSA without licensing and inspection.

Donna O’Shaughnessy, a raw milk producer on the workgroup, said its disbanding was the same as firing the raw milk supporters. O’Shaughnessy pointed out that in the nine months the workgroup met it was never even discussed what the requirements would be for tier-two producers and that IDPH ignored the will of the majority of the group to have no licensing or registration mandate for on-farm sales; throughout the time the group was meeting, IDPH’s minutes from the meetings indicated there was consensus among group members for licensing on-farms sales when there never was. IDPH’s goal is to issue the proposed raw milk rules in March 2014. If adopted, the rules would go into effect sometime next summer or fall.

South Dakota

On November 12 the South Dakota Legislative Rules Review Committee (LRRC) approved raw milk regulations issued by the South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA). The LRRC had rejected a prior attempt by the department to approve the proposed regulations (see original post from Summer 2013 and Fall 2013 update below  for background); but this time the committee signed off on the rule because SDDA had complied with the necessary procedural steps it was required to take for approval. LRRC Chairman Rep. Timothy Johns admitted that he had received a foot high stack of emails opposing the regulations but the committee’s position was that its responsibility is not to judge the worthiness of the rules but only whether the department had followed the proper procedures in issuing them.

SDDA was wasting no time in implementing the regulations; Agriculture Secretary Lucas Lensch announced that the rules would be going into effect on December 11, 2013. Lensch said he had received dozens of requests to postpone implementation of the rules; despite South Dakota law giving government agencies the discretion to delay implementation of a regulation, Lensch rejected the requests, claiming that “to delay the rules puts public health and safety at the back of the line, and that has never been our intent.” Opponents of the regulations have considered going to the legislature to get a bill passed that would effectively overturn the new rules. The fallout from the approved rules was already taking place. Black Hills Milk LLC, a long-time raw milk dairy, notified their customers that it would no longer be selling raw milk and would instead be changing over to a herdshare program in order to be outside SDDA’s jurisdiction.

Update, Fall 2013

Proposed regulations threatening access to raw milk in Illinois and South Dakota continue in the rule-making process (see Wise Traditions Summer 2013 issue for background).

In Illinois, raw milk advocates were making progress in developing more favorable regulations than those originally proposed by a dairy workgroup last winter. The balance of power in the workgroup had shifted to the point that raw milk producers and consumers now made up the majority of those actively working on the new regulations. The focus of the group moved from limiting on-farm sales of raw milk to establishing a two-tier system in which unlicensed on-farm sales of raw milk would continue while producers wanting to sell at farmers markets—and possibly at retail stores—would be licensed and inspected by the state. It seems unlikely that the Illinois Department of Public Health would be issuing the proposed regulations before the end of the year.

In South Dakota, regulations proposed in May went to the Legislative Rules Review Committee (LRRC) on August 20 for final approval. Some modifications had been made to the rules since they were first proposed—notably, language clarifying that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture (SDDA) did not regulate herdshares; but the rules still posed a threat to the future of the licensed raw milk dairies in the state.

After hearing testimony from a number of raw milk advocates, the LRRC voted against approving the proposed regulations, sending them back to SDDA on the grounds that the department didn’t provide sufficient information to comply with the requirement that SDDA provide a statement detailing the impact the proposed regulations would have on small business. The LRRC also rejected the rules because its members believed SDDA failed to thoroughly explain what was being changed in the rules.

It is now up to SDDA to determine what its next step will be. No one trusts the department to make the regulations it resubmits to the LRRC any less burdensome for producers. SDDA provided further evidence of its bias against raw milk with its distribution of a flyer claiming that there were 24 illnesses in South Dakota in 2012 associated with raw milk consumption—a blatant lie, given that there hasn’t been a single reported foodborne illness outbreak in South Dakota attributed to raw milk consumption since 1999, if not further back. A number of raw milk supporters believe that SDDA
dairy administrator Darwin Kurtenbach wants to eliminate all raw milk dairies in the state.

Original Post, Summer 2013

Proposed regulations threatening access to raw milk in South Dakota and Illinois were in the initial stages of the rulemaking process in the two states. In Illinois the unlicensed sale of raw milk on the farm has long been allowed. A dairy workgroup under the direction of the Illinois Department of Public Health that started meeting in the fall of 2012 was still in the process of drafting regulations that could severely restrict both the ability of raw dairy farmers to make a living and consumer access. The latest draft of the workgroup calls for all farms selling raw milk to have a permit as well as to be compliant with Grade A standards, which would significantly increase expenses for raw milk producers. While increasing their costs, the proposed regulations would limit the amount of milk producers could sell to just one hundred gallons per month. Moreover, herdshare agreements would be prohibited.

The dairy workgroup originally did not have as members any farmers who made their living solely from raw milk sales before adding Donna O’Shaughnessy in February. O’Shaughnessy was the one responsible for alerting consumers and other raw milk farmers to the threat the regulations posed. On May 1, over one hundred people showed up at a hearing in Bloomington to oppose the draft regulations; even with the overwhelming opposition, the workgroup did not take any of the onerous provisions out of the draft. The most positive development to come out of the meeting were indications from the workgroup that it would delay issuing the proposed regulations until the end of the year. O’Shaughnessy now has a number of other raw milk producers as well as consumers to help in the fight to stop rule-making on raw milk sales. It will not be easy; the workgroup still has an anti-raw milk majority and its funding is being provided by the most anti-raw milk agency of them all―FDA.

In South Dakota the raw milk regulations were further along; the South Dakota Department of Agriculture formally issued the proposed regulations in May. The regulations call for financially burdensome animal health testing requirements, extensive pathogen testing and for raw milk dairies to be in compliance with the physical facility requirements mandated for conventional Grade A and Grade B dairies. There are only a handful of licensed raw milk dairies in the state now (raw milk sales are only legal in South Dakota with a license) and their numbers don’t look to be increasing if the proposed regulations go into effect. The biggest threat to raw milk producers and consumers in the state is SDDA dairy administrator Darwin Kurtenbach who has been quoted as saying, “I would probably drink gasoline before I’d drink raw milk.”

[include content_id=663]

The post Proposed Raw Milk Regulations in Illinois and South Dakota appeared first on Real Milk.