For the past decade, Allen and Cheryl Voortman of Pride and Joy Creamery in Granger, Washington, have produced high-quality raw milk that has benefited the health of thousands of their customers. At the beginning of 2017, Pride and Joy Creamery was one of the largest raw milk dairies in Washington, distributing their nutrient-dense product throughout the state. Long certified as a 100% grass-fed organic dairy, Pride and Joy received the highest rating given by the nonprofit organic industry watchdog Cornucopia Institute to organic milk producers—a rating given only to ten other dairies in the country.

Sadly, today, Pride and Joy Creamery is out of the retail raw milk business and only produces raw milk for pasteurization. The Voortmans no longer have the herd that produced raw milk for direct consumption. Two shutdowns of the dairy engineered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) led the Voortmans to make the decision to end their raw milk operation.

In February 2017, WSDA and the Washington Department of Public Health accused the dairy’s raw milk of making two people ill with salmonella poisoning. It is not known whether public health officials tried to find any other foods the two sick individuals might have consumed in common once it was discovered that each drank the dairy’s raw milk. WSDA sent samples of the dairy’s raw milk to the state lab; while the samples were negative for salmonella, two samples were positive for shiga-toxin producing e-coli (STEC), a result the department used to pressure the Voortmans into conducting a voluntary recall of the dairy’s raw milk which ultimately resulted in the dairy being shut down for over two months. WSDA produced no evidence that the STEC it found in the milk samples was capable of making anyone sick.

In September, milk samples taken by WSDA tested positive for salmonella, eventually leading the department to suspend the dairy’s license to produce raw milk. When samples WSDA took in October were also positive for salmonella, the Voortmans shut down their raw milk operation for good rather than incur the tremendous expense it would have taken to get WSDA’s approval to start up again. Samples from the same batch of milk that the Voortmans sent to an accredited laboratory in Idaho were all negative for salmonella. During this time, there were no reports of illness caused by the consumption of raw milk. A November post on the Pride and Joy Facebook page announcing the end of the dairy’s retail raw milk business noted, “the bureaucracy, financial burden and uncertainty of this business is now too much for us.”

There is something wrong with the Washington regulatory system when one of the state’s most popular dairies is forced out of business even though its raw milk has arguably made no one sick. Pride and Joy is not the only Washington raw milk dairy to go out of business in recent months; since around the middle of the year, three other dairies have turned in their permits. The four farms account for about ten percent of the total number of licensed Washington raw milk dairies. WSDA’s actions helped shatter in a matter of months a business that a hard-working, conscientious family had taken years to build.

[include content_id=663]

The post Pride and Joy Creamery, Washington appeared first on Real Milk.

Sadly, today, Pride and Joy Creamery is out of the retail raw milk business and only produces raw milk for pasteurization. The Voortmans no longer have the herd that produced raw milk for direct consumption. Two shutdowns of the dairy engineered by the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) led the Voortmans to make the decision to end their raw milk operation.

In February 2017, WSDA and the Washington Department of Public Health accused the dairy’s raw milk of making two people ill with salmonella poisoning. It is not known whether public health officials tried to find any other foods the two sick individuals might have consumed in common once it was discovered that each drank the dairy’s raw milk. WSDA sent samples of the dairy’s raw milk to the state lab; while the samples were negative for salmonella, two samples were positive for shiga-toxin producing e-coli (STEC), a result the department used to pressure the Voortmans into conducting a voluntary recall of the dairy’s raw milk which ultimately resulted in the dairy being shut down for over two months. WSDA produced no evidence that the STEC it found in the milk samples was capable of making anyone sick.

In September, milk samples taken by WSDA tested positive for salmonella, eventually leading the department to suspend the dairy’s license to produce raw milk. When samples WSDA took in October were also positive for salmonella, the Voortmans shut down their raw milk operation for good rather than incur the tremendous expense it would have taken to get WSDA’s approval to start up again. Samples from the same batch of milk that the Voortmans sent to an accredited laboratory in Idaho were all negative for salmonella. During this time, there were no reports of illness caused by the consumption of raw milk. A November post on the Pride and Joy Facebook page announcing the end of the dairy’s retail raw milk business noted, “the bureaucracy, financial burden and uncertainty of this business is now too much for us.”

There is something wrong with the Washington regulatory system when one of the state’s most popular dairy is forced out of business even though its raw milk has arguably made no one sick. Pride and Joy is not the only Washington raw milk dairy to go out of business in recent months; since around the middle of the year three other dairies have turned in their permits. The four farms account for about ten percent of the total number of licensed Washington raw milk dairies.

——
Photo below by Yevgeniy Novozhilov posted November 13, 2017, on the Facebook page for Pride and Joy Creamery with the comment: “Thank you Pride and Joy, for the best-tasting raw milk. My family really enjoyed it for the past several years. Will miss your products very much!”

The post Pride & Joy Creamery Closes Down Raw Milk Operation appeared first on Real Milk.

Ryan and Sarah McCarthey are second-generation farmers and the owners of Dungeness Valley Creamery in Sequim. They will talk about running their dairy farm and caring for their Jersey cows, and will also provide some tips on how to make butter, yogurt and other dairy products from raw milk and cream.

“Why Raw Milk?” is the third installment of the North Olympic Library System’s Food for Thought series. The event is free and open to the public; pre-registration is not required.

The event will take place on Monday, January 6, 2014 at 6pm at the Sequim branch of the North Olympic Library.

630 North Sequim Avenue

Sequim, WA 98382

For more information, click 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 Farmers Discuss Benefits of Raw Milk at Upcoming Event in Sequim, WA appeared first on Real Milk.

Update, Spring 2013

On February 28 attorneys for Kelli and Anthony Estrella―owners of Estrella Family Creamery (Estrella) and the United States Department of Justice filed a motion in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to voluntarily dismiss the Estrella’s appeal of a lower court ruling permanently enjoining Estrella from selling cheese and giving FDA authority to inspect the facility as well as empowering the agency to set the conditions on which Estrella could resume cheese sales. FDA had shut down Estrella in 2010 for positive pathogen tests at a time when the creamery was on its way to resolving whatever issues it had by working with the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). Estrella had been in negotiations with FDA since the court ruling over the terms enabling it to resume its cheese operation; Estrella was trying to limit FDA jurisdiction over it by doing business only in intrastate commerce. Financially strapped and frustrated over the FDA’s refusal to give specific answers on what the limits of the agency’s jurisdiction would be, Kelli and Anthony decided to move on, putting their farm up for sale and ending a long battle with FDA.

Tami Parr, a past president of the Oregon Cheese Guild, commented in an Oregon Live interview on November 5, 2012, that Kelli Estrella “made some of the best cheeses that the Pacific Northwest has seen in modern times.” Estrella won numerous domestic and international awards for the quality of its cheeses. Raw cheese consumers have suffered a major loss.

Update, Winter 2012

One of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated by the government against a raw dairy producer continued when a federal district court judge, Benjamin H. Settle, granted a motion for summary judgment filed by the United States on behalf of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) against Estrella Family Creamery (“Estrella”) permanently enjoining Kelli and Anthony Estrella from selling cheese. The judge’s ruling gives FDA the authority to conduct inspections of the Estrellas’ facility and allows the creamery to resume cheese sales only if it meets numerous and burdensome requirements imposed by the agency.

In October 2010, when FDA executed a seizure order against Estrella, the agency embargoed all cheese stored at the creamery facility on the grounds that the cheese was adulterated since some of the cheese produced by Estrella had tested positive for listeria monocytogenes earlier in the year. While the Estrellas conceded the government was entitled to a judgment against the creamery for producing adulterated food based on the positive pathogen tests, they sought a remedy in which the creamery would only be subject to FDA’s jurisdiction if the creamery engaged in interstate commerce; therefore, if the creamery were to reopen for business, the Estrellas planned to sell only within the state of Washington and obtain all ingredients it used within the state.

In granting the government’s request to have free rein to inspect the Estrellas’ cheese business, Judge Steele held that “the inspection authority needed by the government to ensure that the Defendants are complying with the terms of the injunction should be more extensive than the statutory authority granted the Government to determine whether the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act . . . is, in fact, being violated.”

Adding insult to injury, the judge issued a condemnation order against the seized cheese and awarded FDA costs associated with the condemnation when the agency hadn’t spent a dime on the actual destruction of the seized cheese.

The Estrellas had already destroyed the cheese in the winter of 2011 after FDA did not respond to requests from their attorney to get rid of the product. At the time of its destruction, the cheese had long passed its shelf life and, therefore, was considered by the Estrellas to be a health threat.

Judge Settle’s decision means the Estrella Family Creamery will remain shut down, possibly permanently. Estrella has won numerous domestic and international awards for the quality of its cheeses and has never been accused of making anyone sick. The creamery does not have resources to comply with the requirements FDA will impose and wants nothing more to do with an agency that has single handedly put it out of business. The Estrellas are appealing the judge’s decision.

Update, Winter 2010

In February 2010, Estrella Family Creamery received a call from the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) informing them that a wheel of Estrella cheese purchased at a retail outlet tested positive for L. mono. After a follow-up visit to the Estrella facility by WSDA inspectors turned up more positive results for L. mono in sampled cheeses and in the environment, the owners, Anthony and Kelli Estrella, issued a voluntary recall for several different cheeses. They also threw out thousands of dollars in cheese inventory. They then took about a month off from making cheese to work on a physical upgrade to the facility. After the dairy resumed production, WSDA returned to the facility and took thirty environmental swabs with one of them testing positive for L. mono. The inspectors were not concerned about the positive test, telling the Estrellas, “Listeria is everywhere, you will never totally eradicate it but you have to control it.”

From the time Estrella reopened until August, no cheese, produced post-recall, tested positive for any pathogen. Then FDA stepped into the picture; on August 2, FDA officials showed up to conduct a three-day inspection. They took 151 environmental swabs, four of which tested positive for L. mono (including one on a ceiling switch far from any cheese and another outside the cheese room on a slider door track). After the inspection, the FDA inspectors discussed the results with the Estrellas; they did not indicate that the swabbing or inspection results were unacceptable nor did they use language describing the facility as filthy or unsanitary. They only suggested some minor changes to be made in the facility’s operation.

During a subsequent visit on August 16, an FDA investigator collected a sample of cheese that was also found to be positive for L. mono. The sample came from Cave Three (Estrella has four cheese caves) which was the area where the dairy had the most problems in February. FDA claimed their testing showed that the strain of L. mono found in February at the facility and the strain found in the testing conducted there in August were “indistinguishable”. On August 30 Estrella took cheese samples for testing, four of which came back positive for L. mono; all four were from Cave Three. On September 3, the agency requested that Estrella recall all cheese products. The Estrellas declined the request; however, the company destroyed all cheese located in Cave Three.

On September 4, FDA issued a press release advising consumers that “consumption of all Estrella Creamery cheeses puts them at risk for L. mono related illnesses.” On October 21 the U.S. Marshall Service executed the seizure order issued by a federal district court against the entire inventory of raw cheese located at the creamery; the order was issued on the grounds that the cheese was adulterated since it had “been prepared, packed, and held under unsanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health” in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. As much as 80 percent of the “seized” inventory consisted of long-aged cheeses (such as gruyere and cheddar) that do not support the growth of L. mono. None of these long-aged cheeses at the facility had ever tested positive for L. mono. A court hearing will be held to determine whether the cheese should be destroyed.

There have never been any reported illnesses from the consumption of cheese produced by Estrella in its seven years of operation. Anthony and Kelli Estrella have won numerous awards domestically and internationally for the quality of the cheese they produce. Estrella had halted all cheese production since mid-August. None of the environmental or cheese samples that tested positive for L. mono. has been tested to determine the subtype.

Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, if a food contains a subtype of L. mono (or of any other pathogen) that is not found to have been harmful to human health, then the food is not “adulterated”; if the subtype of L. mono found in an environmental swab is one that has not been shown to cause illness in humans, then there should be no finding of adulteration. If the cheese can be destroyed just on the basis of an initial positive test for L. mono, then Estrella, like Morningland, is being denied due process.

Catherine Donnelly, co-director of the Vermont Institute for Artisan Cheese of the University of Vermont, commented, “If the FDA wanted to shut down the U.S. artisan industry, all they’d have to do is this environmental surveillance (testing for Listeria in cheese plants) and the odds of finding a pathogen would be pretty great. Is our role to shut these places down or help them?” (William Neuman, “Small Cheesemaker Defies F.D.A. over Recall”, New York Times, November 19, 2010)

For small food producers, one recall or destruction order can put them out of business. Due process of law needs to be upheld to protect producers from the reign of terror FDA is waging against farmstead cheese operations; otherwise, FDA will continue to go unchecked after raw dairy producers who have harmed no one with their products—working toward the agency’s eventual goal of eliminating access to raw dairy.

[include content_id=663]

The post Estrella Family Creamery, Washington appeared first on Real Milk.

Statistics

As of now, there are 21 licensed raw milk dairies in Washington selling raw milk. There are two others that are licensed to sell raw milk but have chosen not to do so. Thirteen of the dairies are located near Puget Sound and the Strait of Georgia; there are two dairies near Vancouver, and six in eastern Washington. There are approximately 60 towns and cities in Washington where raw milk is available, possibly more than any other state except Pennsylvania. Understandably, most of them are located close to the concentration of raw milk dairies, from the Puget Sound lowlands on up to the Canadian border.

Raw Milk Dairy Products that are Legal in Washington: Whole milk, cream, fat reduced milk, skimmed milk, colostrum and cheese aged at least sixty days.

The Raw Milk Advisory and Arresting Consumers for Violating the New Law

Around the middle of January I received a sheet of paper in the mail from an unknown sender. The sheet was titled, “Raw Milk Advisory”. The word, “DRAFT”, was written several times across the top, and from the wording, it looked like it was written by the WSDA. The advisory says, in part, “Violation of the law could bring a high price. The first offense is a misdemeanor, with jail up to 90 days and a fine up to $1000; the second offense is a gross misdemeanor, with up to one year in jail and a fine up to $5000. Based on the definition of “sale”, this applies to both the producer and consumer of non-Grade A raw milk. Also included would be anyone who picks up or stores the milk for another person, even if they neither produce nor consume the milk themselves.”

The definition of “sale” as of last legislative session is: “selling, offering for sale, holding for sale, preparing for sale, distributing, dispensing, delivering, supplying, trading, bartering, offering as a gift as an inducement for sale of, and advertising for sale in any media.” I have not been able to verify that the WSDA wrote this draft or has released a Raw Milk Advisory; but, based on the new definition of the word, “sale” it does seem likely that the WSDA might intend to prosecute both consumers and producers of non-licensed raw milk, whether it publishes a warning or not.

The buzz around Olympia is that the WSDA intends to crack down on unlicensed dairies this year and penalize both farmers and consumers. If that is indeed the case, if there are still raw milk consumers here in Washington getting their milk from unlicensed dairies, perhaps they might want to consider giving or loaning money to the farmer who supplies them, to help him or her get licensed. Heck, if it were me, I’d rather give my money to a friend than to the state any day!

Federal regulations prohibit the selling of retail raw milk products across state lines. It has been assumed that if such a sale occurred, it would be only the seller and not the purchaser who would be in violation. I do not know at this time however, whether the definition of the word “sale” in the federal document would also include the consumer. That is research for another day. If anyone has a copy of the applicable federal regulations, would you please forward a copy to me?

Dissuading the Legislature from Passing Anti-Raw Milk Legislation

As you know, last fall, Rep. Jim Moeller from Vancouver, WA, the same legislator who introduced the raw milk legislation last year requiring cow share dairies to be licensed, incorporating a new definition for the word “sale” into the law and inserting new penalties for distributing raw milk without a license, was quoted by his local newspaper as saying, “The 2007 legislature is certain to take a fresh look at banning raw milk sales in Washington because two outbreaks this year have been linked to unpasteurized milk. Maybe a ban will pass next session, where none did last winter. With raw milk making children sick, some legislator is sure to move to outlaw its sale in this state. It is banned in many others.” The article said that Rep. Moeller hadn’t decided whether to introduce a raw milk ban himself.

Because of Rep. Moeller’s public assertion that raw milk was in for another tough ride in 2007, throughout the months of November and December, I was working with others to create and implement the ANTI-BAN PLAN, knowing full well that there really wasn’t enough time to get all the pieces into place before the legislative session would begin on January 8. A goodly amount of work has already been done on the plan, however, and I will be sending you updates about that in the near future. Hopefully, at some point in the not too far distant future there will be a completed plan, waiting and ready in the event anti-raw milk legislation ever does pop up.

Last March, a Small Dairy Workgroup had been mandated by an amendment to Rep. Moeller’s bill to find, and make suggestions to remove, discrimination against small dairies in the wording of the WSDA’s Dairy Farm Manual, the RCWs and the WACs. There may be no greater barrier to licensing for a raw milk micro-dairy farmer than knowing that it would be many years before he or she could recoup their investment in facilities and equipment, if ever. It was hoped that the workgroup would do their job, and that a viable set of size and cost-appropriate requirements for facilities and equipment would be suggested, thus removing this major barrier to licensing that many raw milk micro-dairies had been facing. But this was not to be. The workgroup decided not to address discrimination based on size at all. Their report said, “Early on, the work group discussed whether there was a need to define ‘small-scale dairy.’ The group concluded that a definition would not be needed for its task, as the issue of food safety and concerns related to becoming licensed were not related to size.” Unsurprisingly, the work group concluded that small-scale dairies were not experiencing any major barriers to licensing.

Bewildered as to how the workgroup could have come to such an obviously erroneous conclusion, I engaged the services of a professional business process analyst to analyze the means by which the WSDA work group had done so. The Business Process Analysis of the WSDA report concluded, “…due to infrastructure problems, evidence of bias, and absence of survey data…the business processes associated with the conduct of this study were inadequate to produce a product which meets the need, purpose and intent of the directive.”

On, January 8th, the first day of the current Legislative Session, I represented the raw milk dairy farmers and consumers at the House Ag Committee Roundtable and presented 1) the results of the WSDA workgroup’s report, “Small Scale Dairies: Barriers to Licensing”; 2) the Business Process Analysis of that report; 3) copies of two documents containing barriers to licensing submitted on behalf of raw milk dairy farmers that chose to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal; and 4) an introduction to the SAFMILC Certification Program, a program being created to best insure public safety and the future of the raw milk industry in Washington. My purpose in being at the Roundtable was to ask the legislators to take into consideration the information contained in the Business Process Analysis, the list of barriers to licensing, and the creation the SAFMILC program before making any decisions on bills relating to raw milk that might be presented to them this session. I sent them all follow-up letters to this effect as well.

Shortly after the Roundtable, I spoke with Rep. Moeller’s legislative assistant, and she said that Rep. Moeller did not plan to introduce new legislation on raw milk “at this time”. As far as Celeste Bishop and I have been able to determine, there is no legislation about to be proposed that raw milk be outlawed in Washington, nor does there seem to be a movement to create legislation to oppose raw milk at this time. But in the absence of realistic requirements for facilities and equipment for raw milk micro-dairies, however, another set of circumstances has arisen that could be the undoing of our raw milk industry. (See immediately below.)

The Scramble to Get Raw Milk Dairies Licensed and the “Two-Edged Sword”

Insiders say that since last winter when the new raw milk legislation was passed, complete with its stringent penalties for non-compliance, “the WSDA has been under a lot of pressure to get all the raw milk dairies licensed.” The WSDA Food Safety Officers have indeed worked diligently since that time to get raw milk dairies licensed in the absence of 1) rules and regs that are appropriate for micro-dairies and for dairies that produce raw milk safe for human consumption; and 2) in most cases, in the absence of any background in dairying, much less in the production of raw milk safe for human consumption, which requires a different set of practices, from conventional dairying, and sometimes a different physical set-up and different equipment as well.

To get as many dairies licensed as possible, the Food Safety Officers have sometimes taken great liberties with the rules and regs, and sometimes even ignored certain rules and regs altogether. The problem is that they don’t always know how to distinguish between the rules and regs that are important for producing raw milk safe for human consumption and those that have nothing to do with raw milk safety; so unfortunately, some unwise decisions have been made. These unwise decisions may have unintentionally set the raw milk dairy farmers up for a fall – future outbreaks with the consequential banning of raw milk statewide.

A Viable Solution

It is the primary goal of the SAFMILC Certification Program, now under development, to keep this from happening. The SAFMILC Certification Program will provide raw milk dairy farmers 1) reliable information about production practices that consistently produce raw milk safe for human consumption; and 2) cost and size-appropriate kinds of facilities and equipment that support those proven production practices. Once the raw milk dairy farmers have this information, they will be able to make better informed decisions about their practices and their physical set-ups and equipment, and make any changes needed to protect themselves and others.

Realizing that the WSDA Small Dairy Workgroup did not do the job they were mandated to do, certain legislators have suggested that the best way to remove the current discriminatory requirements in favor of requirements that make sense for raw milk micro-dairies might be for a group of highly experienced raw milk dairy farmers to compile a list of proposed changes, along with an explanations for each one, and submit them to the WSDA and/or the Legislature for adoption. Once the SAFMILC Program has been developed and has the enthusiastic support of raw milk industry, this suggestion might be worth serious consideration.

For the last several weeks, my work with raw milk dairy farmers on the SAFMILC Program was temporarily suspended; Opposing Pro-NAIS and REAL ID legislation became a much higher priority for raw milk dairy farmers and raw milk consumers alike. I look forward to resuming work on the SAFMILC Program very soon. It’s an extremely worthwhile endeavor. I find it very exciting and I’m pleased to be part of it!

That’s it for now!

Emmy McAllister, Coordinator
Washington Raw Milk Campaign
a Project of the Weston A. Price Foundation

The post Washington Raw Milk Campaign appeared first on Real Milk.

In late November of 2005, an outbreak of illness attributed to virulent E. coli O157:H7 afflicted eight Washington State individuals who had consumed raw milk, sparked a flurry of news reports, and vaulted the subject of raw milk into the national media.

The milk came from Dee Creek Farm, a small family farm near the town of Woodland in Cowlitz County, in southwestern Washington State, just north of the town of Vancouver in southwest Washington. The owners, Anita and Michael Puckett, operate a diverse pasture-based operation while raising their large family—11 children, of which seven still live with them on the farm. A married daughter, Summer Steenbarger, also lives on the farm with her husband and two small children.

In June of 2004, the Pucketts purchased a cow to provide milk for their large family. Their customers for wanted milk also—were clamorous for raw milk—so in January, 2005, the family began a cow share program. Theirs was one of several cowshare programs in Washington State, which later became loosely tied together under the auspices of WASDO—the Washington Association of Shareholder Dairy Owners.

Under the guidance of the Weston A. Price Foundation’s Spokane, Washington chapter leader George Calvert, and Chrys Ostrander, the organizer of the Raw Dairy Choice Campaign, the WASDO group had met in October, 2005, to formulate operating and safety guidelines for share-holder operations. Calvert’s vision embraced the share-holder model as a way of allowing extremely small producers—such as home schooling mothers or retired individuals on social security—to generate a decent income with a small number of cows on just a few acres.

Concurrent with the increase in share-holder operations, the state of Washington had modified the dairy regulations in July, 2005, to make it easier and less expensive for small dairies to become licensed. The principal change was the allowance of hand-capping, so small dairies could become licensed without the burdensome expense of a bottling machine. The architect of this laudatory revision was Claudia Coles, head of the Department of Agriculture’s safety program. While favoring regulations that made it easier to become licensed, Coles has consistently opposed the shareholder model, even expressing a refusal to share the stage with George Calvert at a conference on local value-added products held at Green River College in April, 2005. (However, at the conference, she sat with the Puckett family extensively and even had lunch with them.) Calvert and others maintained that the Washington State licensing requirements were still too expensive for very small operations.

By November, Dee Creek Farm was milking five cows for 45 families, who together had purchased 72 shares. All the families regularly visited the farm and knew how their cows were cared for and milked. Because of conversations held with the Pucketts at the Green River conference several months earlier, the Department of Agriculture was familiar with the Dee Creek operation and knew that the Pucketts’ goal was to become a licensed dairy.

The Pucketts were new to dairying. They did not have fancy facilities, but were careful to follow good sanitary practices as recommended by several other dairymen in the area. The cows grazed on pasture but came into a barn for milking. The Pucketts washed the teats with iodine and milked with a milking machine into a closed stainless steel bucket which they carefully washed before milking. They then transported the buckets into their kitchen where they transferred the milk into gallon-sized glass jars owned by the shareholders. It was the shareholders’ duty to provide clean jars, but the Pucketts then washed the jars again in the dishwasher, just to be safe. The filled jars went immediately into the freezer for 90 minutes and then into the refrigerator.

The various shareholder families had organized themselves into groups for milk pick-up. Each day of the week, one family picked up milk at the farm for a dozen or so other shareholders. When the pickup person arrived at the farm, the Pucketts placed the glass jars into a large cooler with blue ice. Each group of families had a pickup location, such as a front porch, where the cooler was left unattended. Families for each group had a window of 3 to 9 pm to come by and retrieve their milk from the cooler. The Pucketts had explained the pickup system to agents from the Department of Health and the Department of Agriculture on one of their visits to the farm; the officials offered no feedback, neither positive or negative.

Michael Puckett often picked up the empty cooler early the following morning, on the way home from his night job. About two weeks before the incident, he was somewhat unnerved by the presence of a car parked across the street of the pickup house. A driver sat behind the steering wheel. Puckett stalled to see how long the car would remain. Twenty minutes passed, at which time a police car arrived and the driver drove off.

In late November, an article by journalist Francis Robinson, originally published in Mother Earth News (October/November 2005), was carried by the Associated Press and appeared in several local newspapers. Robinson described the heartwarming story of Kelsey Kozak of Vashon Island who, at age 16, had set up a share-holder program for Iris, a six-year-old Jersey cow. The article described in detail how the cowshare worked, and the delight of shareholders at the delicious cream, butter, cheese and yoghurt that Kelsey produced from Iris’s milk.

The Outbreak

The first Dee Creek shareholder to become sick was a child from a family that picked up milk on Monday from the milking of November 26 or 27, at the pickup house where Michael had noticed the parked car. Soon other children fell ill and several were hospitalized. Health officials quickly confirmed the culprit as a strain of virulent E. coli O157:H7.

The newspapers reported 17 or 18 confirmed cases of food borne illness from E. coli in Dee Creek Farm shareholders—the first of many exaggerations to appear in the media. According to the Washington Department of Health there are only seven; according to Summer Steenbarger, who has acted as spokesperson for the farm since the incident, there were actually eight confirmed cases, six people (from four families) from the Monday pickup group of 13 families and two from the Tuesday pickup group of six families. In all, five were hospitalized, from three families, all from the Monday pickup group. One was released after treatment with IV for dehydration, one was released after three days, one after five days, but two of the children, from two different families, remained hospitalized in serious condition for around a month. One member of the Puckett family tested positive but did not get sick, and three other individuals among the shareholder families had symptoms but did not test positive. In fact, of the other 11 “cases,” at least eight of them specifically tested negative. One important point: Dee Creek Farm stopped distribution and advised their shareholders to cease consumption of their milk days before the Department of Health even acknowledged that they knew about the issue and contacted the farm.

The Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) visited the farm three times during the week of December 12 to conduct a thorough investigation, taking samples of milk and swabs from all five cows on the farm. At that point, the Pucketts had put away the equipment they used for their share holders and were milking only for their pigs. This they explained to the inspectors, noting how they did things differently when they milked for human consumption. Mrs. Puckett had to remind the inspectors to hose down and sterilize their boots before they entered the milking barn—the farm was very muddy at the time, as were all farms in the region, because of a record-breaking rainy season. The family was present during the entire investigation and was able to capture most of it on video.

Predictably, the media coverage of the incident leaned heavily on health department reports in what Chrys Ostrander described as “a showcase of sensationalism and unprofessional journalism.” However, TV interviews did include many consumers who expressed passionate support of raw milk. In one, Anna Olson, a shareholder, poured a glass of Dee Creek Farm’s milk that she still had in her refrigerator for her family to drink.

The newspapers reported that the law offices of William D. Marler had contacted two of the three families. Bill Marler is a high-profile attorney who specializes in food illness litigation. His law firm won the Jack-in-the-Box and Odwalla juice cases.

On December 21, the Clark County Health Department issued a report stating that the Washington State Department of Agriculture had confirmed E. coli O157:H7 in Dee Creek Farm milk. (Clark county lies across the river from Cowlitz County and was the scene of an outbreak of E. coli O157:H7 at a county fair earlier in the year.) Claudia Coles left two telephone messages, one to the Pucketts and one to their daughter Summer, apologizing for the Clark County report and stating that at that point, no specific pathogens had been found.

Newspaper reports also stated that Dee Creek Farms had received a Cease and Desist letter from the state. What Dee Creek had received was a letter, friendly in tone, dated August 11, 2005, from the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) stating that providing milk through cowshare operations constituted a sale.

The State requested a reply within 15 days and Dee Creek complied with a letter dated September 9, 2005, that is, 15 days within receipt of the Department’s query. In their reply, the Pucketts stated that 1) the farm did not sell milk, 2) the farm was in the process of obtaining a Grade A permit and 3) they requested more information about obtaining the permit. George Calvert had received a similar letter, written in a less friendly tone, which was answered by his lawyer, who responded that cowshare operations did not constitute a sale. The first to receive such a letter responded via an attorney in March, 2005, requesting more information. They had not heard from WSDA since their response.

It was at a press conference on January 16, that Washington State officials announced a positive finding of E. coli O157:H7 in two samples of milk and five environmental samples from Dee Creek farm, of a strain that matched those cultured from the stool of the sick children. The report stated that “Raw milk bought and distributed from Dee Creek Farm was consumed by all affected people prior to their becoming ill,” and that “Dee Creek Farm illegally sold raw milk.” The state report concluded: “The WSDA FSP investigation along with the epidemiological work by the County Health Departments demonstrates that the illegal raw milk provided by Dee Creek Farms was the source of the E. coli O157:H7 that sickened at least 18 people in Washington and Oregon.”

Many Questions

While state officials express confidence that the outbreak was caused by raw milk, they have ignored many facts that call their conclusions into question. First, and most importantly, is the fact that independent labs testing Dee Creek’s milk, following the same testing protocol used by the state, found no E. coli O157:H7, not even in the same samples the state claims tested positive. It needs to be emphasized that no tests were done on the milk consumed by those who fell ill.

Another item: there was at least one concurrent outbreak of infection from E. coli O157:H7, affecting several family members in the Tualatin area. One boy ended up in the same hospital as the Dee Creek kids, in critical condition, and is still there after a month, possibly with long-term brain, nerve and kidney damage. Several of his family members were also confirmed with E. coli O157:H7. Neither the state nor the media has seen fit to report this important fact. We can only guess whether there were other unreported cases of E. coli O157:H7 at the same time.

It should be noted that Washington State has been plagued with E. coli O157:H7 outbreaks during the last 15 years. Between 1990-1999, 23 such outbreaks were reported, afflicting at least 288 individuals, from sources as diverse as fish, lettuce and lasagna, with a large number attributed to ground beef or hamburger. The worst outbreak occurred in October 1996, when 70 individuals became sickened from contaminated apple juice. This highly publicized outbreak led to federal regulations requiring the pasteurization of all fruit juice sold in retail outlets.

Officials attributed a June, 2000 incident on Vancouver Island, in which several children fell ill, to raw milk—eight children according to one report posted by the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s 2002 “Outbreak Alert,” five according to another (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/ccdr-rmtc/02vol28/dr2801eb.html). The children were diagnosed with an infection of E. coli O157:H7 after drinking raw goat’s milk. However, official reports do not reflect other possible sources of infection—all the children lived on a cooperative farm and one had visited a petting zoo just prior to the outbreak. Petting zoos are common sources of infection. Furthermore, investigators had to work hard to find E. coli in the milk. One milk sample was found to be “presumptively” positive after “enrichment” with a testing substance; no E. coli was found in samples before “enrichment” and no E. coli was found in a second sample.

(The Pucketts believe this is how WSDA found E. coli O157:H7 in their milk—if they actually found it—they had a “presumptive” hit and then used an “enrichment” substance to find what they were looking for.)

Just two months before the Dee Creek incident, in September 2005, E. coli O157:H7 was found in water samples in a north Spokane water district, prompting a health alert.

According to information posted at the website of attorney Bill Marler, packaged lettuce and other vegetables are often sources of E. coli because they are sprayed with contaminated irrigation water. Contaminated water from intensive livestock operations also finds its ways into wells and water systems. Such water may be the underlying cause of the many E. coli outbreaks in this farming state.

One theory holds that the ultimate source of the virulent E. coli strains is genetically engineered soy, created by using fragments of E. coli micro-organisms as a vector for gene insertion, fragments which can mutate easily and which find the perfect environment for proliferation in the acidic guts of grain-fed confinement cows. Only feedlot cows headed for slaughter and fed pure grain have been found to harbor E. coli O157:H7 in their guts and manure. Runoff from large farms then carries the organism into water supplies. How convenient for agribusiness that the finger of blame points to milk from a tiny family farm where animals are fed on pasture.

Tactics

Then there are the tactics of the Washington State Department of Agriculture—reminiscent of those used against Alta Dena, a raw milk dairy in California, back in the 1970s and 1980s, and more recently during a campylobacter outbreak in Wisconsin (where raw milk was accused of an outbreak that affected hundreds of people, most of whom did not drink raw milk). The state kept its final report secret until the day before the introduction of new raw milk legislation, and announced “proof positive” at a press conference. Dee Creek Farm and others involved learned of the final report and the press release from the media, not the state.

To make their case for new legislation, officials claimed that Dee Creek had barred entry to the farm. In fact, the Pucketts had never barred entry to the farm, only requested that inspections take place when they did not have other obligations (such as meeting with their attorney or visiting the doctor), to which officials agreed. (When confronted with these lies, Michael Tokos of WSDA apologized and agreed that the Pucketts did not ever bar entry.) The new legislation requires a customer list, based on claims that Dee Creek refused to supply such a list. This, too, is based on lies. The Pucketts did not ever deny the list, but first took steps to obtain authorized signatures from the owners. (They had 18 within 12 hours, with more on the way.)

The Senate bill, number 6377, sponsored by Washington Senator Mark Coumit, D-Cathlamet, would make cowshares illegal without a Grade A permit and imposes stiff penalties for farmers operating without a license. The bill grants the Department of Agriculture authority to inspect dairies suspected of operating outside health regulations and to obtain a search warrant if owners bar inspectors.

Under the capable leadership of Emmy McAllister, Snohomish, Washington Weston A. Price Foundation chapter leader, local activists quickly formed a group called the Washington State Raw Milk Micro-Dairy Task Force to work out alternative legislation that would make the licensing requirements less difficult and less expensive (such as a separate kitchen structure) for very small dairies selling directly to the public, while adding regulations that would provide a greater assurance of safety. The committee includes farmers from both licensed and share-holder dairies as well as Mark McAfee from Organic Pastures Dairy in California and officials from the Weston A. Price Foundation.

McAfee traveled from California to join the group for a meeting in Olympia on January 18 and testified at hearings before the Agriculture Committee the next day. Specifically, the task force recommended that small licensed dairies perform routine testing for E. coli O157:H7, keep frozen milk samples, maintain a list of customers and use containers with tamper-evident seals—none of these provisions is currently required for licensed dairies in the state of Washington. According to McAfee, the hearing seemed to be “just a formality” and that “no one on the committee was listening.”

The Current Situation

All three hospitalized children are on the road to recovery and leading normal lives. (Was it the raw milk they drank that saved them?) Dee Creek Farm expects to be in full operation this season. The farm has been testing their milk weekly—without finding E. coli O157:H7.

Dee Creek plans to obtain a Grade A license and continue its cowshare operation, aiming to begin milking cows again by May. Many of the share holders have requested that they participate in building the Grade A facility—they all have skills in different areas. Nevertheless, their estimated expenses are expected to reach $20,000.

The family remains confused about reports of a lawsuit. Two of the most critically afflicted families have assured the family that they have no plans of suing and indeed have never talked to a lawyer, and the other family is on friendly terms. Yet the following statement remains posted at billmarler.com: “Marler Clark plans to pursue litigation on behalf of at least two families.”

The Pucketts have been obliged to take on legal help for potential issues, however, which is being provided at a reduced rate but not gratis. The family’s financial resources are minimal and the state may impose fines. Donations for legal expenses are tax deductible and may be sent to WAPF/Dee Creek Farm Support, PO Box 1936, Woodland, WA 98674.

Senate Bill 6377 has passed out of the Agriculture Committee and on to the Rules Committee, which schedules legislation for votes by the full Senate. Language making distribution of unlicensed milk a felony has been downgraded to a gross misdemeanor, although repeat offenses would be felonies. The bill allows the Department authority to order a dairy to stop distributing milk—and also to embargo and dispose of milk from a dairy suspected of health violations—which could be an open door to harassment unless protections for the farmer are included.

Chrys Ostrander has set up a list serve for the committee at raw-milk-taskforce@lists.onenw.org and is posting updates at www.shareholderdairies.org. The committee is optimistic that separate, less onerous provisions for micro-dairies will be incorporated into the final legislation.

In deference to the current situation, the Weston A. Price Foundation has removed listings of unlicensed cowshare programs from the Washington State section of realmilk.com. But licensed dairies are posted—there are now five licensed dairies selling raw cow or goat milk, both on farm and in retail outlets throughout the state, with more small dairies are in the process of certification. However, there are no available sources in southwest Washington. One licensed dairy nearby milks four goats, but they are all dry over the winter. Families who need raw milk must obtain it through food co-ops or by mail order.

Given the anomalies contained in the WSDA final report, the unattended cooler and the suspicious behavior observed by Michael Puckett, an investigation is in order. Sabotage and entrapment cannot be ruled out. Indeed, media reports that “Agriculture officials were unable to get onto the farm or stop the distribution of milk until the matter became a public health issue (Daily News, Longview, WA, January 27, 2006),” indicate a strong motive for the state to create an incident as a means of obtaining changes in the dairy regulations.

Lessons Learned

Several important lessons emerge from the Dee Creek incident—lessons that all small dairy operations should apply, whether licensed or unlicensed. First is the importance of storing the milk in disposable plastic containers with tamper-evident seals. This will help protect milk from deliberate sabotage, or contamination from poorly washed jars. Several companies supply these containers at a very reasonable price. The plastic used in these containers is very stable and will not leach chemicals into the milk as long as the milk is kept cold. Even in states that require customers to supply their own containers, farmers should insist that they use these disposable containers with tamper-evident seals.

Second, milk producers should keep three samples of milk drawn every day. The samples should be clearly marked with a date, frozen and kept for several weeks, until there is no possibility of any reports of illness from milk drawn that particular day. If the state asks for a sample after an illness, the farmer can provide one sample to the state and send out the other two to two different independent laboratories—and the farmer should not tell the state which labs he will be using. We have a report from a Florida farmer whom the state accused of having high bacteria counts. He sent his milk to two independent labs and came back with cell counts under 10,000. The state lab claimed a finding of 320,000, but did not harass the farmer any further.

Third, farmers should have their milk tested periodically for pathogens, including E. coli O157:H7. Fortunately, an inexpensive test for E. coli O157:H7 is now available from Strategic Diagnostics, Inc. (www.sdix.com, 559-217-8909), which can even be carried out on the farm.

Finally, some advice from Kathryn Russell, who runs a cowshare program in Virginia. Dairy farmers should not allow government agents to obtain and test samples of milk or cow’s manure after an incident of food borne illness until they have first identified the offending strain of E. coli. Very precise identification is now possible using a technique called Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis, which relies on genetic fingerprinting to identify specific strains of E. coli. In order to keep state agencies and their laboratories honest, farmers should only allow samples to be taken after the offending organism taken from human stool specimens has been definitively identified.

Optimism

It is important to be positive. In spite of the Dee Creek incident, raw milk continues to be available in Washington state. In fact, it is becoming more available as more small dairies become licensed, even available in retail stores. The outbreak has actually galvanized and brought together many talented individuals to work on guidelines that protect both the farmer and the public. The lessons we have learned may be instrumental in nurturing the raw milk movement as it grows, not only in Washington state but also throughout the country.

SIDEBARS

Anomalies, Errors, and Lies

The Washington State Department of Agriculture’s (WSDA) final report on the Dee Creek Farm incident is filled with anomalies, errors and downright lies. Here are a few out of many:

• The Report claimed to find E.coli O157:H7 in the milk, whereas independent labs found none.
• WSDA claimed that Dee Creek Farm did not “meet the standards” of the dairy regulations. Yet from recent hearings emerged quotes from WSDA admitting that they previously had no regulation authority over shareholder dairies. Before the incident, WSDA agreed that shareholder dairies were not required to “meet standards.”
• The Report claims that during the WSDA investigation, a cow was “munching” on a tube while in the milking parlor. Nothing of the sort is recorded on the Dee Creek video.
• During the inspection, Dee Creek consistently explained that they were not milking that day for human consumption. This was never noted in the report.
• The Pucketts pointed out the large numbers of elk seen on the farm, and the strange consistency of their droppings. Referring to the elk, the Report states, “The inspectors were not able to collect any additional information or observe any other conditions at that time,” insinuating that Dee Creek did not allow them to make further investigations. WSDA was free to inspect whatever they wanted, but they chose not to pursue this avenue of research.
• According to the Report, “the firm also delivered to the health department a whey sample and a skimmed cream sample.” This is untrue.
• The report states that “The inspectors sprayed their boots with a 100 ppm chlorine solution and used a hand sanitizing gel.” They only did this after the Pucketts pointed out that they were required to sanitize.
• The Report contained photos of the entrance to the barn, which was muddy, and stated that the cows lived in a “mudpack/pasture.” The Report did not show photographs of the actual pasture, which was not a mudpack. And no dairy at the time could have passed the barn-entrance test as Washington state had received record-breaking rains for the previous month.
• The report stated that someone in Woodland reported to WSDA that Dee Creek had traded chicken for milk in the summer of 2004. The Pucketts were not doing milk at all until late summer and as they produced both chicken and milk, the claim that they traded chicken for milk does not make sense.

Sidebar: Cowshares vs. Licensed Dairies

This article appeared in the Winter 2005/Spring 2006 edition of Wise Traditions, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

[include content_id=634]

The post E. coli O157:H7 Outbreak in Washington State: Lessons Learned appeared first on Real Milk.