The distribution of raw milk through herd share agreements is legal by policy in Ohio¹; Kremer thinks that distribution capability is key to success and that this hinges on restoring the tradition of the milkman–the raw milkman.

In 1995, there were 6,800 dairies in Ohio; today there are about 2,000. In recent months, the average price of milk conventional farmers receive is around 30 percent (30%) below the cost of production. Dairy cooperatives are sending suicide hotline numbers along with milk checks. Organic dairies can’t compete with the certified organic mega-dairies in Texas and Colorado that are flooding the market with “organic” milk while violating federal regulation on the amount of time their herds should be out on pasture.

Kremer says, ”Many in the industry consider the disappearance of the family dairy farm as inevitable. We do not. In fact, we are convinced that this crisis event is an opportunity to strengthen the economic base of this demographic and re-establish it under its own branding.”

“To continue in dairy, the farmers will need an alternate market. We are encouraging them to consider the real or raw milk market. It would mean having direct and independent access to the public, a sufficient margin for their family’s economic viability, and the opportunity to work collaboratively with those of us they would serve to ensure the integrity and safety of their product. Most importantly, it will mean restoring the direct relationship between us and them.”

The first milkman in the U.S. was a raw milk man; home deliveries of raw milk began in Vermont in 1785^2,3. In the 1950s over half of the milk sales were made through home delivery; even though these sales were mostly pasteurized milk there were still home deliveries of raw milk. By 1963 29.7% of milk sales were made through home delivery⁴; the growth of supermarkets and other factors contributed to the decline. By 2005 only 0.4% of milk sales were made through home deliveries.⁵

Since 2005 home deliveries from the milkman have started to make a comeback. Distributors are delivering not only pasteurized milk but other foods such as meat, eggs and produce.

Deliveries of raw milk and raw milk products have been on the rise for a while as well but these deliveries mainly take place at a central drop-site and not door-to-door. It is the hope of Kremer that he and others will have enough demand to start home deliveries of raw milk to individual shareholders who request it.

American consumers like their convenience; door-to-door raw milk delivery fills this need and tries to give raw milk drinkers no reason not to order the product. Home delivery is becoming an increasingly important part of the overall competition for the food dollar; chains like Whole Foods are using the delivery service Instacart to drop off food orders at customers’ homes. Instacart claims it can make deliveries in as little as an hour after the customer places the order. Raw milk sales can help dairies currently producing only pasteurized milk remain in business; the easier the dairies make it for the consumer to obtain their products the better their chances of success.

Many baby boomers who grew up in the 50s and 60s nostalgically recall the milkman as someone who was part of their community or as someone who was like an extended family member. There’s no reason that can’t happen for the raw milkman; a familiar face in the neighborhood can bring on additional demand.

Kremer is starting a campaign to grow consumer demand for raw milk through increased participation in herd share programs. He hopes increased demand will encourage more dairy farmers to make the transition to producing raw milk for distribution through herd shares; bringing back a piece from our cultural past and restoring the tradition of the milkman–is part of the path to success.

———-
[1] In Darke County herd shares are legal by judicial decision thanks to a 2006 court ruling in the case of Daley v. Schmitmeyer
[2] Drink Milk in Glass Bottles. “The Day the Milkman Went Away: A History of Home Milk Delivery” [Blog post]. Last retrieved 12/5/2018 from http://www.drinkmilkinglassbottles.com/a-quick-history-home-milk-delivery/
[3] Stanpacnet. “Brief History of Home Milk Delivery Service” [Blog post]. Last retrieved 12/5/2018 from
http://www.stanpacnet.com/a-brief-history-of-home-milk-delivery-service/
[4] Eve Tahmincioglu, “Remember the Milkman? In Some Places, He’s Back”, New York Times, December 16, 2007. Last retrieved 12/5/2018 from https://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/business/yourmoney/16milk.html
[5] Ibid.

The post Return of the Milkman in Ohio appeared first on Real Milk.

Update, Summer 2011

On May 27 an inspector from the Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness stopped off at a dropsite for the Whole Life Buying Club (WLBC), issuing the coordinator for the site an order to cease and desist distribution of unpasteurized milk from that location due to alleged violations of the state food code and dairy code. The sale of raw milk is prohibited under Kentucky law; WLBC obtains raw milk pursuant to a herd lease agreement it has signed with a farm in the state.

The inspector followed up the cease and desist order with a notice and order of quarantine of “all milk productions [at the site] until such time they are shown to be compliance with FDA and State of Kentucky Food Code.” The quarantine was issued on behalf of the Kentucky Cabinet of Human Resources, Department for Health Services. Both the quarantine and cease-and-desist orders were made out to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. The drop-site coordinator had been speaking with Gary Cox, General Counsel for the Fund when the inspector was present.

The members of WLBC responded courageously to the government interference with the club’s raw milk distribution. A piece of paper was placed on the cooler containing the milk at the site; the paper stated, “I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I have taken my milk that comes from cows I own via private contract under the protection of the KY constitution (Articles 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 26), and if the county health department would like to speak with me about this matter, I can be reached at the number given below.” Before the day was over, about forty members of WLBC had signed the statement and taken their raw milk from the site.

In the days following the defiance of the quarantine, the WLBC members’ actions received considerable support in the media and among other like-minded groups in Kentucky. Pressure was put on the Louisville and state departments of health by state legislators as well. On June 3 an official from the department delivered a letter rescinding the cease and desist and quarantine orders to John Moody, co-administrator for WLBC. The actions of the WLBC members show the importance of a united consumer front in moving government officials to acknowledge, whether they want to or not, the right of individuals to obtain the food of their choice from the source of their choice.

[include content_id=663]

The post Whole Life Buying Club, Kentucky appeared first on Real Milk.

I have a DVD of 20+ testimonies of WAPF members in southwestern Ohio. Many are families speaking to the general health improvement of their children, allergy reduction, dental cavity reduction, fewer doctor visits and (what they they thought was) milk intolerance (really was pasteurized milk intolerance). Two of the testimonies are life threatening medical illnesses. One lady had been instructed to sell everything she had and prepare for her funeral (that was three years ago before she started raw milk).

I also have two DVDs by a doctor who teaches microbiology to doctors in the Wright State University Medical school. One covers raw milk generally, and the other DVD is Nutritional Impact of Real Milk for Children. In the latter DVD he testifies to the benefit he has noted in his younger children compared to the older where real milk was not in their diet.

Most of these DVDs are recorded in our chapter meetings. I sell all of these DVDs for $10 apiece and all proceeds are sent to our Ohio Raw Milk producers to pay legal defense fees. So far those monies have been used to defend two of the Ohio farmers who were cited for bogus issues. One Amish farmer was cited for not having proper labeling on a milk jug the inspector provided out of this van. The other farmer was cited for a disease for which no evidence was detected on his farm. Ohio is blessed with a governor now who was raised on the farm and recognizes the benefits of real milk. He has instructed the Ohio Dept of Ag to back off if a herdshare contract is in place. If Ohioans are willing to purchase a (usually refundable) contract to purchase part of a herd of cows, then they are consuming milk from their own herd and that is legal in Ohio. Our push in Ohio is to grow the community of real milk consumers.

If you wish to have copies of any of these DVDs, you may either send a check for $10 each (covers shipping) to me at Jim Roberts, 293 Chapel Drive, Springboro, OH 45066. OR send me a payment with Paypal to JTRoberts@USA.COM. Be sure to include your address. If you need to reach me, my phone number is (937) 898-5063.

The post Ohio Testimonials on DVD appeared first on Real Milk.

Ruling overturns state’s aggressive campaign against raw milk operators.

By David G. Cox

Judge Jonathan P. Hein of Ohio’s Darke County Court of Common Pleas issued a decision on December 29, 2006, in the case of Carol Schmitmeyer, a Versailles, Ohio dairy producer who had been operating a herdshare program in order to make raw milk legally available to people who wanted to consume it.

Judge Hein’s decision vacated an earlier decision of the Director of Agriculture that revoked Ms. Schmitmeyer’s dairy producer’s license because Director Dailey believed Ms. Schmitmeyer’s herdshare operation constituted an illegal “sale” of raw milk. In his decision, however, Judge Hein stated that there are “various deficiencies” in the law which are “fundamental to a correct interpretation of the law” and that the Director’s decision to revoke Ms. Schmitmeyer’s license was similarly deficient.

A herdshare operates on the principle that persons (usually city dwellers) buy an ownership interest in a herd of dairy cows; they board those cows at a farmer’s farm; and they pay a periodic boarding fee to the farmer in exchange for the farmer taking care of, tending to and providing feed to the herd. The herdshare owners in essence become “shareholders” in the dairy farm and receive as a dividend on their investment the raw milk that comes from their share.

The farmer earns extra income by receiving the boarding fee and the purchase price of the “shares” in the herd, while the shareholders receive raw milk in accordance with the law and have the satisfaction of knowing where their milk comes from and how it is produced. It is an arrangement that pleases everyone involved.

Everyone, that is, except the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA). In 2006, the ODA relentlessly and ruthlessly pursued herdshare operators throughout the state, claiming they were illegally selling raw milk and putting the entire public’s health at risk. For example, just in 2006 alone, ODA revoked the license of an Amish farmer who took a $2 donation for one gallon of raw milk; arrested in conjunction with federal authorities a farmer in Cincinnati who was delivering raw milk to his shareholders (and who was carried away in an ambulance because he suffered a mild heart attack); attempted to revoke the commercial feed registration of two Washington County women who use raw milk as an ingredient in their pet food products; and attempted to conduct a secret investigation into a herdshare program operated by a married couple in Butler County.

And in September, ODA revoked the producer’s license of Carol Schmitmeyer which could have put her out of business because her family derived 87 percent of its economic livelihood from her producer’s license.

Ms. Schmitmeyer argued in her appeal that because the law was so vague, i.e., “sale” or “sold” were not defined, that there was no way to determine whether ODA’s interpretation and application of the law was reasonable, arbitrary or capricious. ODA had gone on record in the past as allowing a farmer and his family to consume raw milk from the family farm’s cows, but insisted that shareholders in a herdshare did not have similar rights.

Judge Hein in his decision stated that “if the herdshare agreement is a circumvention of the law, so is the Department’s inexact practice of allowing owners and their families, etc. to consume raw milk. Consequently, too much subjectivity results from the “Department’s practice of allowing some as yet undefined persons (owners, family members, etc.) to consume raw milk at as yet undefined locations (on farm, etc.).”

Ms. Schmitmeyer also argued that before her license could be revoked, ODA was required by law to provide her with “a reasonable amount of time to correct the alleged violations. Indeed, and as a precautionary measure, Ms. Schmitmeyer had sent two letters to ODA in the spring of 2006 requesting assistance and guidance from ODA on what her herdshare operation needed to do to comply with the law, yet both letters were ignored by ODA.

As it turned out, the first time Ms. Schmitmeyer had a hint that something was wrong was when she received a letter in the mail from ODA proposing to revoke her license. Judge Hein stated in his decision that “the Department avoided its duty to [Ms. Schmitmeyer] by not engaging in discussion with her (and other herdshare owners) regarding the issues now before this Court. Due to the failure of the Department to articulate specific problems with the herdshare agreement, ODA failed to provide Ms. Schmitmeyer with an opportunity to correct the alleged violations.

In essence, Judge Hein’s decision vindicates Ms. Schmitmeyer in her ordeal. Judge Hein’s decision also validates herdshare agreements in Ohio when they are drafted in a manner consistent with contract law and when they provide for a transfer of ownership in the herd, whether partial or complete transfer, from the farmer to the shareholder. Therefore, unless and until the statute is changed or administrative regulations are issued to provide clarity on the issue, herdshare agreements appear to be legal in Ohio.

Ms. Schmitmeyer has filed with Judge Hein a motion to recover her attorney’s fees and costs from ODA. She hopes for a favorable ruling given the facts of this case.

Editor’s Note: Atty. Cox reported in late February that the ODA is appealing Judge Hein’s decision. The department also submitted to Schmitmeyer what was termed a settlement offer, and she is preparing a counter offer. Briefs on the appeal are due by both sides by the end of April.

David G. Cox is an associate with the Columbus, Ohio, law firm of Lane, Alton and Horst LLC where he practices agricultural and environmental law. This article is not intended to be nor should it be construed as either legal advice or the opinion of the firm. It first appeared in the Winter 2007 edition of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association News (www.oeffa.org) and is reprinted with permission.

SOURCE: http://www.newfarm.org/features/2007/0307/rawmilk/cox.shtml

The post Herdshare Arrangements Ruled Legal in Ohio appeared first on Real Milk.

A lot is happening in Kentucky and Ohio, starting with two unfortunate incidents—an undercover sting operation and a police raid—with silver linings in the form of pending legislation to legalize the sale of raw milk in both states.

UNDERCOVER ENTRAPMENT

Amish dairy farmer Arlie Stutzman won a victory on April 17 when Judge Thomas D. White denied the motion of the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) for a default judgment against him in a hearing at the Holmes County Court of Common Pleas. If the judge had granted the ODA’s motion, the Court would have ordered a permanent injunction against Arlie, restraining him from violating the Ohio Dairy Code and the Administrative Rules adopted thereunder. ODA had originally filed for a preliminary and a permanent injunction against him on Dec. 19, 2005. Judge White had granted the preliminary injunction on January 17, 2006; and ODA had filed a default judgment motion on March 15 to obtain the permanent injunction when Arlie had failed to file an answer to the initial motion as required by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Arlie filed a response to the motion for default judgment on April 14. At the hearing Judge White ruled that the filing was a sufficient answer to the ODA’s initial motion and set a June 30 date for a final hearing on the merits of ODA’s motion for a permanent injunction.

The dispute in this case arose from a transaction on September 20, 2005 when Arlie accepted two dollars from an ODA undercover agent after providing him with a gallon of milk in an unlabeled container furnished by the agent. ODA claims the transaction was a sale that violated state and federal labeling laws. Arlie claims that the money he accepted was a donation and that he only took the money after the agent persisted in asking what he wanted for the milk. The incident garnered several newspaper reports which cast the ODA in a very bad light.

In denying ODA’s motion for a default judgment, Judge White stated that several legal issues would be considered before the Court at the June 30 hearing:

1. Was the transaction a sale or a donation? If the transaction was a donation, it would not fall under the Ohio Dairy Code and would, therefore, be outside the jurisdiction of the ODA.
2. Did the actions of the ODA agent constitute entrapment? Even if the transaction was a sale, the judge could deny the motion for a permanent injunction if there was an entrapment. Arlie claims he would not have accepted two dollars for the milk had it not been for the actions of the agent.
3. Do the ODA’s actions violate Arlie’s First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion? At the April 17 hearing Arlie (who represented himself) cited several passages from the Bible in support of his belief that he has a religious duty to provide food to those in need. He claimed an injunction would penalize him for obeying the teachings of his religion in giving food to those in need who ask for it.

On the same day as the hearing, the ODA made a surprise move by issuing Arlie a Grade A dairy license. Previously, he had held a Grade B license (allowing him to sell his milk for cheese), which he had maintained without a single penalty or customer complaint for over 12 years until the ODA revoked it following an administrative hearing on February 8. ODA moved to issue the Grade A license after public outrage over Arlie’s treatment. Less than six weeks earlier, before the ODA had realized the public anger over their actions in this case, an ODA inspector had told Arlie that he would not be able to obtain even a Grade B license unless that license was issued in the name of either his wife or his son.

We’ll be watching this case carefully as several important legal issues are involved.

THE POLICE ACT TOUGH

Gary and Dawn Oaks of Double O Farms in Verona, Kentucky, started a cow-share program in 2004 and have seen it grow to over 100 families. On March 6, 2006, just after noon, Gary pulled into St. Bernard’s Church parking lot in Cincinnati, Ohio to deliver milk to waiting shareholders. He proceeded to unlock the back door of his trailer of his vehicle when suddenly several policemen and agriculture officials from Kentucky and Ohio stormed up, blocking access to the shareholders. The police officers told the shareholders not to touch the milk—the “white liquid substance” as they called it—and refused to give identification when shareholders asked for it.

“Shut up, this doesn’t concern you,” was their response. When some of the shareholders tried to explain that this did concern them, that they were being denied access to the milk from their own cows, the response was the same—rude and intimidating.

The officials took Gary to the other side of the parking lot and would not let shareholders get close to him. When some shareholders tried to go to their cars, parked near Gary’s truck, the officers shouted “Get away from the trailer!” So the shareholders—mothers and children—continued to observe. Inside the car, the police browbeat Gary, attempting to make him confess that he was selling raw milk.

Gary then came out from one of the police cars and the shareholders started to walk toward him to offer support. His face was bright red and he looked ill. “Gary, you don’t have to tell them anything,” said one witness. “You don’t have to say a word until you talk to your lawyer.”

For her pains, one officer got close to her face and said, “Look lady, shut up.”
Gary was taken into another car while officials transferred the items from Gary’s trailer to official state vehicles. Witnesses could see that Gary looked very ill and on the point of collapse. But their requests to the police to call 911 were met with derision. “I am 911, so shut the hell up,” shouted one officer.

However, one shareholder did call 911 on her cell phone. By this time, Gary was lying down on the cold, wet cement next to a police car. The ambulance arrived a few minutes later and took Gary away.

A VENDETTA

Following the incident, Gary has checked into the hospital several times with undisclosed difficulties. At an informal hearing convened by the Kentucky Milk Safety Board, the Oaks were told that they or their shareholders could only consume their milk on the property—anyone carrying the milk away would be subject to criminal charges.

Shortly thereafter, however, Kentucky officials took a softer tack, promising to “study the issue,” which means that the Kentucky Cabinet for Health Services is conducting an internal investigation to determine whether they have jurisdiction over herdshares.

It turns out that the Oaks had been the subject of intense harassment from a neighbor for several years and that the two Kentucky dairy officials involved in the raid had been egged on by the same neighbor. Both the Oaks and the shareholders are considering their legal options and the cow share program continues unimpeded. Shareholders have helped with the milking and chores during Gary’s illness.

While the state of Kentucky is holding off for the moment, the state of Ohio sent the Oaks a certified letter on May 25 stating that the state is considering legal action against Gary related to the raid on March 6. The first step in this process is an administrative hearing.
Donations to help defray legal and medical expenses would be most welcome and can be sent to Double O Farm, 14340 Brown Road, Verona, Kentucky 41092.

AGENCY SUPPORT

Meanwhile, proponents for legislation to legalize raw milk in Kentucky, headed by Ben Abell of the Community Farm Alliance, testified at two House Agriculture Committee hearings. The legislators were enthusiastic about the idea of legalizing raw milk sales under certain guidelines; many of them grew up on farms and told stories of consuming raw milk themselves.

On the second day of testimony, a Kentucky Department of Agriculture spokesman said that his agency was aware of consumer demand for raw milk and raw milk products and realized the opportunity this presented to Kentucky’s small farms. He announced that the department would conduct a series of meetings in order to recommend legislation for legalizing raw milk sales in the next session.

Surprisingly, a spokesperson for the Health Department stated that the agency was committed to working with the agriculture department to evaluate whether raw milk sales could be made legal while maintaining adequate requirements to protect the public health. So the odds of legalizing raw milk sales in Kentucky look good. Stay tuned.

THE OHIO HEARING

Mark McAfee, president of Organic Pastures Dairy in California, testifies on the superior safety record of raw milk before the Ohio House Agriculture Committee, May 10. Since 1990, the dairy has sold 40 million servings of raw milk without incident; during the same period there were 19 recalls of pasteurized milk products in the state of California.

Ohio officials are proceeding carefully after negative publicity over ODA tactics. They had begun proceedings against a large cow share program in southern Ohio after two raw-milk-drinking individuals from two different families in the Dayton area suffered from campylobacter infection in January. (No other shareholders reported any illness.) Resistance from the shareholders to requests for information has led to a standoff for the moment. The shareholders are ably represented by attorney David Cox.

All eyes are now focused on House Bill 534, the “Raw Milk” bill, which had its first hearing on May 10. Over 170 supporters of raw milk heard Warren Byles, Executive Director of the Raw Milk Organization of Ohio, Sally Fallon of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Mark McAfee of Organic Pastures Dairy, attorney David Cox, Ohio dairy farmer Paul Schmitmeyer and Carol Goland, Executive Director of the Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, testify on the health, safety and economic benefits of Nature’s Perfect Food.

Participants in the May 10 testimony before the Ohio House Agriculture Committee included (first row, left to right) Toldeo chapter leader Kris Johnson, RN, New Hampshire chapter leader Marita Whitaker, Toldeo chapter leader Lisa Bowe, Sally Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Lims chapter leader Laurie Smith and Mark McAfee, president of Organic Pastures Dairy; and (second row, left to right) dairy farmer Paul Schmitmeyer, Rawson chapter leader Dr. Wayne Feister, Kenton chapter leader Jaime Feine, dairy farmer and Defiance chapter leader Ralph Schlatter and Warren Byles, Executive Director of the Raw Milk Organization of Ohio.

Particularly impressive was a presentation by Marilynn Anater, senior and co-valedictorian at Lehman Catholic High School in Sidney, Ohio, who described the results of her science fair project entitled “The Nutritional Content of Bovine Milk: A Comparative Analysis.” Her project, which received an award from the Ohio Department of Agriculture, described chemical analyses used to demonstrate the denaturing of proteins and sugars in pasteurized milk.

Several moving testimonials followed and word from the corridors is that the legislators were impressed. The Raw Milk Organization of Ohio is well organized and cautiously optimistic about the passage of the raw milk bill along with an end to strong arm tactics against Ohio dairy farmers.

This article appeared in the Summer 2006 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

[include content_id=634]

[include content_id=663]

The post Kentucky and Ohio: Raw Milk Battleground appeared first on Real Milk.