Reneau’s is limiting government power, not surprising for someone who endured a combined three-year investigation of the Tennessee Department of Agriculture (TDA) and USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS), all in connection with providing nutrient-dense food to her community through a food buyers club. Reneau was able to turn this adversity into a major legislative success.

In 2016 Reneau along with Nate and Ajnu Wilson started the Weekly Fig, a private membership association that distributed raw milk, meat and other nutrient-dense foods from local farmers to members of the food buyers club. A passage in Weekly Fig’s Articles of Association stated, “We proclaim the freedom to choose and decide for ourselves, the types of products, services and methods that we think best for healthy eating and preventing illness and disease of our minds and bodies, and for achieving and maintaining optimal wellness. We proclaim and reserve the right to healthy food options that include, but are not limited to, cutting-edge discoveries and farming practices used by any types of healers or therapists or practitioners the world over, whether traditional or non-traditional, conventional or non-conventional.” 

Weekly Fig rented out space to handle the storage and distribution of farm-produced food to its members; a short time after it had been in operation, a health department inspector barged in on the facility and conducted an unauthorized, warrantless inspection. The health department subsequently issued the Weekly Fig citations for not having the proper licenses for what they were doing. Soon after, TDA became involved sending its own inspector over to the facility. Reneau refused to let the inspector in, claiming TDA did not have jurisdiction over a private buyers club distributing food only to its members. TDA followed up by sending a warning letter to Weekly Fig stating, among other violations, that it was illegally operating a food establishment without a license and offering raw milk for sale. When TDA and the buyers club couldn’t come to a resolution on the matter, the department sent further correspondence to Weekly Fig putting Reneau and the Wilsons on notice that “future violations of the same or similar sort, i.e., unlicensed operation as a food establishment or sale of raw milk—will be considered grounds for the department to seek actions for injunction and or criminal charges.”

TDA did not take an enforcement action against Weekly Fig, but the threat of one remained over its head; so, when the 2017 Tennessee legislative session rolled around, Reneau contacted State Senator Frank Niceley to see if he could help the food buyers club with legislation.  Niceley introduced Senate Bill 651 (SB 651) which established that there was no regulation or licensing requirement for a “farm to consumer distribution point.“ Reneau testified at a Senate committee hearing for the bill; on May 11, 2017, SB651 was signed into law. A law distinguishing between the public and private distribution of food was now on the books—a major victory for food buyers clubs and farmers in Tennessee.

Unfortunately, Reneau’s problems did not end, even though there was no longer a conflict with TDA. Shortly before SB 651 became law, the Weekly Fig received a visit from two FSIS officials seeking to inspect the facility and the freezers in it. Reneau refused to let them in, telling them this was a private membership association and that, unless they had a warrant, they could not conduct an inspection of the facility.

FSIS Inspectors attempted a second inspection, and Reneau refused them again. When the inspectors provided her with copies of the laws they claimed gave them authority to inspect, she told them those laws apply to the general public, not a private membership association. In battling FSIS, Reneau showed the same courage and tenacity she did in her dispute with TDA—not accepting the government’s general assertions of authority and contesting the regulators point by point, asking for specific citations in the law to back up their claims. She grudgingly gave up ground to regulators, standing on her belief that there is a legal distinction between the public and private distribution of food.

Reneau said, “My whole life I have typically been a law-abider. I very much have a great respect for authority. It became very clear to me though, in my journey over the last 10 years with health and food and medical, that I need to be cautious about any authority exerted from those places because they had already proven themselves wrong in many cases.”

FSIS sent warning letters to Reneau and Weekly Fig after the attempted inspections and subsequently filed a court action to inspect the facility and look at the buyers club’s records. During the standoff, Reneau decided to shut down the Weekly Fig when it lost its lease and a suitable replacement within its budget could not be found; being pregnant with her fifth child made the decision easier to discontinue with the day-to-day operations. Nevertheless, FSIS pressed on with the case seeking records from the Weekly Fig.

In April 2019, Reneau had a court hearing, attending it while 37 weeks pregnant; the judge ordered that she appear for a deposition and bring buyers club records. The deposition took place in July 2019; Reneau brought her two-month-old baby with her—nursing the baby throughout the questioning from DOJ and USDA attorneys. She was worried about protecting the privacy of her club members and farmers; as it turned out, the deposition was more about getting the matter off FSIS’s desk—after two years, the federal investigation of Weekly Fig was over.

Through her experience with the Weekly Fig, Reneau has seen a side of government that most have not. She says, “I would just like to see less of the government making decisions on behalf of people as it affects their private lives. We should be able to make decisions for ourselves as long as it is not impacting other people … I just feel like the government has taken too much of a role in private life and that is where I would like to see things shift.”

Michele Reneau is active in defending faith, family and freedom, and constitutional rights—including the fundamental rights of parents to direct the upbringing, health and education of their children according to their values and beliefs. Acting on the courage of her convictions, she is someone who walks the talk.

The post How One Weston Price Chapter Leader Made an Impact appeared first on Real Milk.

Niceley, an honorary board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF), is one of the more productive and liberty-minded legislators in the country and an effective advocate in Nashville (the state capital) not only for his own constituents but also for numerous other Tennessee residents, especially farmers. It’s common for farmers around the state to contact Niceley, a fifth-generation cattle farmer, for help instead of their own legislators if they are having an issue with a regulator or government agency, be it state or federal.

The successful legislation he has sponsored and policies he has helped implement as both a state representative and state senator have made a huge impact on small farmers and local artisan food producers and many others in Tennessee. In his latest term, Niceley sponsored successful bills legalizing the over-the-counter sale of ivermectin (Tennessee was the first state to do so), taking the sales tax off gold and silver coins, legalizing the unlicensed, unregulated sale of cottage foods not only direct from the producer to the consumer but also to third parties such as grocery stores, and establishing a state meat inspection program.

Niceley has done more to deregulate local food production and distribution than anyone in the past 15 years, enabling family farms and local artisans to have a better chance to make a living. His list of accomplishments include:

2009 [HB 720]
Sponsored bill legalizing the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements. In 2012 Niceley followed up on that bill by getting an Attorney General’s opinion that it was legal to distribute other raw dairy products through a herdshare agreement as well.

2012
Got an Attorney General’s opinion that farmers didn’t need a permit to sell eggs from their own farm.

2014 [SB 1707]
Sponsored a bill adopting the federal poultry exemption enabling farmers to process up to 20,000 birds a year. The Tennessee Department of Agriculture has since expanded the exemption by policy to include processing rabbit meat on the farm.

Before the bill passed, Tennessee had one of the worst regulatory climates for on-farm poultry processing in the country; during that time, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) received a call from a poultry farmer in Bristol, Tennessee, getting ready to move across the state line to Bristol, Virginia, because he was so fed up with the restrictive laws and policies on on-farm poultry processing.

2017 [SB 343]

Sponsored a bill adopting the federal exemption on custom slaughter and the exemption on non-amenable species. The latter exemption allows the sale of meat from animals such as bison and domestically raised deer that are slaughtered and processed at a custom facility.

2017 [SB 651]
When Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) chapter leader, Michele Reneau, was threatened with prosecution because the food buyers club she co-managed did not have a permit, Niceley passed a bill, exempting food buyers clubs from licensing and regulation.

2017
Received Attorney General’s opinion stating that there can be an unlimited number of owners for an animal slaughtered and processed at a custom facility and that entities such as a food buyers club can be an owner of such a custom animal.

2019 [SB 358]
Sponsored bill legalizing sales of raw butter by licensed dairies.

2020 [SB 2049]
Sponsored a bill requiring that any meat labeled as a product of Tennessee must be from an animal that was born and raised in the state.

2020 [SJR 841]
Sponsored a resolution commending the Weston Price Foundation for its 50-50 Campaign urging people to buy at least 50% of their food budget direct from the farm.

2022 [SB 693]
Sponsored the Tennessee Food Freedom Act legalizing the unlicensed unregulated sale from homemade food producers of food that does not require time and temperature control for safety, including fermented foods; these sales can be direct to consumers and also by some third parties such as food buyers clubs and grocery stores.

2023 [SB 123]
Sponsored the bill to establish a State Meat Inspection program in Tennessee; like many states, Tennessee has a shortage of federally, inspected slaughterhouses, especially in the eastern half of the state.

2024 [SB 1914]
Sponsored a bill providing for vending machines with whole milk in the schools, giving children a more nutritious option while still preserving federal funding for Tennessee’s school lunch program. The federal rule that withdraws funding from Washington if whole milk is served in a school lunch has worsened children’s health and the economic condition of the dairy industry.

Niceley‘s work impacts the local food movement around the rest of the U.S. as well. The first thing legislators typically ask when a constituent requests that they introduce a bill is: “Has this been done elsewhere?”

The senator has introduced and helped pass a number of bills that were law in few, if any, states outside Tennessee. In the 2024 session he helped pass a bill defining and regulating as a drug any food that contained “a vaccine or vaccine material.”

Legislation he introduced this past session includes: a constitutional resolution to protect the individuals right to grow and acquire the food of their choice [SJR 902]; a bill that would have barred any prohibition on the growing of produce and the raising of chicken or meat rabbits on a residential lot [SB 1761]; a bill that would have exempted farms from any vaccine mandate for their livestock or poultry, if the farms practice was not to vaccinate their livestock or poultry [SB 2543]; and legislation that would have prohibited cell-cultured meat from being defined as “meat” [SB 2603].

Niceley has been generous with his time in helping legislators, farmers and eaters in other states working on food and agriculture bills. As for Tennessee, there is no one who has done as much for the small farmer and local food producer in that state as Frank Niceley.

[Photo credit: Solari.com “Blast from the Past“]

The post The Farmers’ Legislator appeared first on Real Milk.

Several major farm organizations, including the Iowa State Dairy Association and Iowa Dairy Foods Association, registered to lobby against the bill. Proponents included Americans for Prosperity, a conservative-leaning national libertarian group that helped organize the Tea Party movement.

“The passage of SF 315 is a victory for families and agriculture across our great state and reaffirms that the government has no right to dictate what Iowans choose to drink,” Tyler J. Raygor, deputy state director of Americans For Prosperity-Iowa, said in a statement following the Senate’s vote. “With this legislation, Iowans will have the freedom to choose what to feed their family while enabling innovation in the fresh milk industry.”

The new law has requirements for storing and selling raw milk and preventing sales if the cows, goats or sheep recently received antibiotics. It also outlines testing for bacteria and requires the records be made available to consumers and state officials.

A big thank you to dairy farmer Esther Arkfield who has lobbied patiently for allowing raw milk sales in Iowa.

With the bill’s passage, there remain only four states where farmers cannot provide raw milk in any manner: Louisiana, Hawaii, Nevada and Rhode Island.

We are also working to liberalize regulations in a number of states, particularly New York, where regulations allow only raw milk sales from the farm. New York raw milk farmers are prevented from delivering to the huge market of New York City, or from selling at farmers markets.

This article was first published in the Summer 2023 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Raw Milk Updates, Summer 2023 appeared first on Real Milk.

GEORGIA – HOUSE BILL 1175 FOR RAW MILK SALES

If there ever was a sign of how much the political and regulatory landscape for raw milk has changed, it is House Bill 1175 (HB 1175), legislation that is currently before the Georgia Senate Agriculture and Consumer Affairs Committee after having passed out of the House by a 100-62 vote. HB 1175 would legalize the licensed sale of raw milk for human consumption direct to consumers—something many bills in state legislatures around the country have proposed in recent years. Georgia law has long allowed the sale of raw milk for pet consumption. What’s different about this bill is that the driving force behind it is Georgia Milk Producers (GMP), marking the first time in memory that a conventional dairy industry group is pushing for legal raw milk sales.

GMP is a producer organization located in Watkinsville, Georgia; its mission is to support, sustain and help the Georgia dairy industry grow. On March 10, 2021, GMP Executive Director Farrah Newberry testified before the Georgia House Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs that GMP had changed its position on raw milk and now supported legalization of sales for human consumption. In her testimony, Newberry disclosed that Georgia had declined from five hundred twenty-five dairies producing raw milk for pasteurization in 2000 to one hundred fourteen in 2021. She noted that Kroger and Publix operate the only processing plants in the state; Georgia has no plants producing either ice cream or cheese. Newberry told the committee that Grade A pasteurized milk was selling for $2.99 to $3.99 per gallon in Georgia while raw pet milk was going for $8 to $12 per gallon. She concluded her testimony by stating that legal raw milk sales for human consumption would protect the dairy industry in Georgia by having adequate safeguards in law for the production of safe raw milk and would provide market opportunities for smaller Grade A producers.

HB 1175 contains provisions not usually found in raw milk bills, such as clauses governing adding water to the milk, the use of “processed animal waste derivatives used as feed ingredients for any portion of the total ration of the lactating dairy animal,” and the prohibition against “unprocessed poultry litter and unprocessed recycled animal body discharges being fed to lactating dairy animals.” The bill gives broad power to the Georgia commissioner of agriculture to adopt regulations implementing and enforcing the bill’s requirements; the regulations must be of uniform application. The bill is written for Grade A dairies also wanting to sell raw milk for direct consumption; it’s unlikely that micro dairies looking to sell raw milk direct to the final consumer will be able to afford the cost of compliance.

ALASKA – REGULATIONS TO LEGALIZE RAW MILK SALES

Another sign of how much the political and regulatory landscape has changed for raw milk is a proposed regulation the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issued on January 17 that would legalize sales of raw milk, cheese, butter, cream, yogurt, kefir and ice cream direct to the consumer and at retail stores. Less than a year ago, Governor Mike Dunleavy signed House Bill 22 (HB 22) into law, legislation that legalized the distribution of all raw dairy products through herdshare agreements; DEC opposed the measure when Representative Geran Tarr introduced the bill in 2019. The impetus for the proposed regulation was a survey DEC conducted in August 2021 through the Office of the State Veterinarian to determine the level of interest in raw milk sales; one hundred seventy-nine people responded, with nineteen animal owners interested in selling their animals’ milk and one hundred four consumers interested in purchasing raw milk.

In support of its decision, DEC posted the following statement on its website: “The most critical concern Alaskans hold for the future of food is the security of its food supply,” read a 2014 study on food security commissioned by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, with collaboration from the Alaska Food Policy Council. The supply chain disruptions that Alaskans have observed during the Covid-19 pandemic have further highlighted Alaska’s need to enhance the security of its in-state food supply.

Under the proposed regulations, producers are not required to have a permit but must register with DEC and obtain a registration number. DEC would not conduct routine inspections; the department would inspect only in the event a consumer complaint is filed or if either a foodborne illness or an animal health outbreak is suspected. There are container labeling, recordkeeping and physical facility requirements as well as a requirement to keep milk samples taken from each batch for fourteen days after milking; there is no routine testing mandate. The proposed regulation also mandates a “veterinarian-client patient relationship to oversee the health of the herd.”

There are provisions in the proposed regulations that could be amended to help producers. The draft regulation prohibits the sale not only of raw milk but any other raw milk products, including butter, more than four days after the production date. The draft could have amended the state food code to allow retail stores to sell raw milk without having to obtain a variance to do so; under current law, retail stores can sell only Grade A pasteurized milk products (except for raw cheese aged sixty days). It is also unclear how many of the dairies interested in selling raw milk and raw milk products would be able to meet the physical facility requirements in the proposed regulation.

This article was first published in the Spring 2023 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

The post Raw Milk Updates, Spring 2023 appeared first on Real Milk.

The late Dr. Theodore (Ted) Fairbank Beals, MD, made significant contributions to bringing more science into dialogues about raw milk benefits and risks.

Dr. Beals was instrumental in obtaining data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from U.S. states that monitor microbes in raw milk from farms licensed at the state level. Dr. Beals introduced these FOIA data to readers of this journal before his death last year in 2021.¹

My collaborators and I share the belief articulated by Dr. Beals that policies without a sound basis in scientific evidence cannot promote health and well-being in the populations subject to those policies. Yet, policies around pasteurizing raw milk, both human donor breastmilk and milk from ruminants, are not based on 21st-century scientific evidence. This article will introduce readers to highlights from the FOIA data project report and provide information about its application in Microbial Risk Assessment (MRA) (See below).

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FOIA DATA AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

The objective of our project was to summarize the data from routine testing for microbial pathogens in fresh unprocessed milk from licensed farms obtained by FOIA through Dr. Beals as mentioned above. Results from the Microsoft Access database project are summarized in Table 1 below.²

A more extensive table on pathogen testing results for raw milk was developed from multiple documents, which summarized the data from FOIA as well as data from multiple countries (Canada, Finland, Germany, Poland, U.S., and U.K.). The overall results are shown in Table 2 below.³ Note that pathogens were detected in 0.01 percent or fewer of all samples.

Although just knowing data on the occurrence (frequency or rates of pathogen positives) in foods is insufficient to estimate risk, it is reasonable to ask how a food with such extensive recent data from around the world documenting that more than 99 percent of routine samples were undetectable for major foodborne pathogens is an “inherently dangerous food.” From my experience, experts with pro-pasteurization biases provide no recent evidence or analysis that supports this opinion.

TABLE 1. Results Reported under FOIA on Detection of the Presence of Major Microbial Pathogens in Raw Milk from Licensed Dairy Farms in Four State Sampling Plans.²

TABLE 2. Recent Results on Pathogen-Positive Rates in Raw Milk Reported in Peer-Reviewed Studies and Recent FOIA Data.³

MICROBIAL RISK ASSESSMENT

Microbial or Microbiological Risk Assessment (MRA) is a rigorous interdisciplinary process organized around a consensus framework ratified in 1999 by the one hundred sixty-three member countries of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.^11,20 MRAs may apply qualitative methods and report categories of risk levels (such as negligible, low, moderate, high risk) or quantitative methods (QMRAs) and report risk estimates per year or per serving.

Foodborne risk is estimated by conducting a series of discrete and interconnected technical analyses illustrated in Figure 1.²¹ These involve:

• Hazard Identification
• Exposure Assessment
• Dose-Response Assessment
• Risk Characterization

This article emphasizes Exposure Assessment because the data received through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)1 and the growth study are useful for estimating and assessing the likelihood and magnitude of pathogen exposures to consumers in servings of contaminated foods.

It’s important to understand one basic principle of Dose-Response Assessment: as the number of pathogens ingested increases, the frequency (likelihood) and severity of illness increases. “Low levels equal low risk.”²²

Some key general principles of the eleven listed in the 1999 consensus document on principles and guidelines for Microbiological (Microbial) Risk Assessment11 are as follows:

1=Microbiological Risk Assessment should be soundly based upon science.
5=The conduct of a Microbiological Risk Assessment should be transparent.
11=A Microbiological Risk Assessment may need reevaluation, as new relevant information becomes available.

GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF PATHOGENS

Regarding growth and survival of pathogens for exposure assessment, analysts may select growth models that intentionally over-estimate risk, such as using data for optimal growth of pathogens in pure culture broth.

However, a recent pilot study conducted by a certified laboratory4 and funded by the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) documented the inability of the major bacterial pathogens to grow in raw milk for a week of storage at the temperature that U.S. regulatory agencies recommend for refrigerated foods: 4.4 °C (40°F).⁵

20TH vs 21ST-CENTURY SCIENCE

Many 21st-century studies of the microbiota of milk^3,6 are inconsistent with beliefs based on 20th century science. Certainly, 20th-century science, opinions and beliefs selected by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ)7 in 2009 swayed the Toronto judge in the recent decision maintaining Canada’s prohibition on access to raw milk.⁸ The judge apparently believed the pro-pasteurization argument that milk should be sterile and the microbes present are the result of fecal contamination.

Apparently, the Toronto judge relied on an outdated quantitative method whose models simulated not data from sound scientific studies, but a series of worst-case assumptions, extrapolations and opinions that intentionally overestimated risk and underestimated uncertainty. Further, the judge and others mistakenly assumed that evidence from outbreaks was sufficient to estimate risk, while evidence from predictive microbiology was excluded, dismissed or ignored.

Contrary to FSANZ’s view, pathogens in feces are not predictive of pathogen presence or levels in raw milk. My recommendations to FSANZ from a technical review⁹ included abandoning its outdated views on fecal contamination for raw milk and conducting a reassessment of their 2009 simulations using recent evidence for benefits and risks.

I am not the only scientist to question the assumptions and outputs of the 2009 FSANZ simulations. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)¹⁰ also considered the FSANZ 2009 report and peer-reviewed publications on more recent risk assessments for raw milk. EFSA concluded that risks for raw milk consumers can be mitigated and reduced significantly by controlling temperature, limiting shelf life and engaging consumer compliance with controls (that is, maintaining proper refrigeration temperatures for raw milk).

Further, EFSA concluded that many potential pathogens are not main hazards to consumers in the European Union including Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus.

Those familiar with New York state regulations for raw milk monitoring may be puzzled about the EFSA determination that these two pathogens are not considered main hazards to raw milk consumers. In fact, farmers who pay the licensing fee in New York state are paying for routine testing for two pathogens never linked to an outbreak associated with raw milk in the state, based on data obtained from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

The FSANZ modeled or simulated potential risk based on a series of intentionally conservative (biased) assumptions and indirect or extrapolated data that have not been validated then or since. FSANZ seems to have selected assumptions, opinions and extrapolations that exaggerated risks and underestimated uncertainties, consistent with their pre-conceived pro-pasteurization bias articulated throughout the report.

The FSANZ simulations were not soundly based on science, nor were alternative assumptions tested to increase transparency. In short, FSANZ did not comply with principles and guidelines stipulated from international consensus.¹¹ My peer review of the FSANZ report,⁹ undertaken twelve years after its release, identified many relevant studies available before release of the report that were intentionally or inadvertently excluded by FSANZ. I strongly recommended that FSANZ update the assessment and incorporate scientific data from technological advances of the last decade to improve the credibility of the assessment.⁹

Fear and dread of many (or all) microbes as “germs” that will kill us (germophobia) appear to factor strongly into policies requiring pasteurization and regulations on the presence of potential pathogens, not their levels or their risk for causing illness. The fear of microbes as “germs” appears to be entrenched even among well-meaning scientists and regulators in misconceptions of 20th-century science, and wall them off from any consideration of the tremendous advances in knowledge about the microbiota of milk, particularly the rich body of evidence for both benefits and risks of raw milk from both humans6 and cows.³ At present, the pasteurization and zero-tolerance policies for potential pathogens in raw milk appear inconsistent with the available evidence and the state of the science in the 21st century.

FUTURE FOR EVIDENCE-BASED POLICIES ON RAW AND PASTEURIZED MILK

Readers of Wise Traditions may be aware that many factors influence what is published and what is rejected about science and its applications in risk assessment. According to a recent report by the National Science and Technology Council,¹² novel scientific discoveries that challenge established dogmas may be suppressed, manipulated and inappropriately influenced by political pressures and interference to distort outcomes to maintain the status quo or meet preferred policy objectives or decisions. To quote from this report, scientific integrity can be impeded by “mischaracterizing, fabricating, removing, or disregarding relevant scientific information.” Undoubtedly, there is great need for developing or improving evidence-based decisions guided by the best available science and data, recognizing that scientific and technological information and data are central to the development and iterative improvement of sound policies. The report further describes political interference as “inappropriate, scientifically unjustified intervention in the conduct, management, communication, or use of science.”

Just as scientists are not unbiased or immune to economic, political and social pressures, neither are editors and reviewers for scientific journals. A recent New York Times article by Gina Kolata and Benjamin Mueller13 mentioned an innovative scientific paper “summarily rejected” by two prestigious journals (Nature and Science) before its eventual acceptance in a “niche publication called Immunity.” Similarly, our work on bovine milk was rejected by two scientific journals before acceptance by the Open Access journal Applied Microbiology. Certainly, my co-authors and I improved the publication and its communication of the evidence map work in responding to reviewers in three separate peer-review processes. However, I have no doubt that pro-pasteurization biases delayed publication of a comprehensive and simultaneous analysis of benefits and risks for raw milk for more than two years.

If you followed the Toronto case involving raw milk farmer Michael Schmidt, you may have realized that the U.S. government is on record for attempting to interfere with an independent scientific journal that published the 2018 Whitehead and Lake analysis of CDC data on raw and pasteurized milk outbreaks (see Table 3).¹⁴ The U.S. government expert (Mr. John Sheehan, FDA) testified that U.S. government analysts were working to repeat both the Whitehead and Lake analysis (2018) and a subsequent analysis of the same data by statistician Dr. Nick Azzolina¹⁵ who submitted an affidavit with his analysis of the same CDC dataset. The important point is that for the years 2005-2017, the CDC recorded more illnesses from campylobacter and listeria in pasteurized milk compared to raw. I am collaborating with Nick Azzolina, Joanne Whitehead, Bryony Lake and Michele Stephenson to extend the analysis for more recent outbreak data from the CDC for 2005 to 2019.

In cross-examination, Toronto attorney Ian Blue asked the government official whether the results of their reanalyses would be published if consistent with prior analyses. To date, I am aware of no subsequent publication that either refutes or confirms the findings of Whitehead and Lake or Azzolina. Yet the Toronto judge appears to have succumbed to blatant political intrusion and aligned her decision with the unsupported opinions of the government official over independent statistical analysis of U.S. outbreaks by an accomplished statistician.

Clearly, processes for scientific peer review are subject to political and other pressures. Yet, peer-reviewed studies are crucial to providing credible evidence about raw milk benefits and risks to courts, legislatures and regulatory agencies around the world. Even when some opinions and claims are made that pasteurization is a silver bullet that decreases risk and increases benefits to consumers, peer-reviewed studies with robust statistical analysis are crucial to helping judges, legislators and regulators to properly acknowledge and weigh the evidence.

TABLE 3. CDC Outbreak Data for Two Pathogens.¹⁴

RECOMMENDED DAILY ALLOWANCES FOR MICROBES?

A question that may be of interest to WAPF members concerns the concept of expanding Recommended Daily Allowances (RDAs) for vitamins to RDAs for microbes.^16,17 These studies were the subject of my Society for Risk Analysis webinar last year entitled “Resilience and the Human Superorganism: Give Us this Day Our Daily Microbes.”¹⁸ Foods naturally enriched in microbes, including raw milk¹⁹ and fermented foods (such as cheese, kefir, kimchi and kombucha), certainly could contribute to RDAs for microbes.

I strongly believe that questions from raw milk stakeholders are essential for consideration of the evidence (or lack thereof) behind pasteurization policies and monitoring requirements for farms licensed to sell raw milk. Consumers deserve to have a voice in decisions about pasteurizing donor breastmilk and cow milk, particularly to maintain and extend freedom of choice to consumers around the world.

In summary, recent research on the benefits and risks of raw milk³ does not support the outdated assumptions that raw milk is inherently dangerous, and that existing hygiene management programs, including Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, and Test-and-Hold Programs, cannot ensure a safe, low-risk product for raw milk consumers.

This article was first published in the Spring 2023 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Peg Coleman, MS, is a medical microbiologist, a microbial risk assessor and a fellow of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA). Her long career as a microbial risk assessor began with the U.S. federal government (USDA/FSIS) and continues as a consultant. Her primary interests are benefit-risk analysis and resilience of human superorganisms, Homo sapiens complete with microbial partners in health.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I am deeply grateful for contributions from WAPF, the Raw Milk Institute (RAWMI) and others through a 2018 crowdfunding campaign (Whole Truth, Whole Milk) through the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) that provided partial support for preparing the two evidence map publications.^3,6 I appreciate ongoing support from Mark McAfee of RAWMI and Sally Fallon Morell of WAPF. I strongly value the opportunity to serve on the advisory board of RAWMI. I acknowledge support from Mark McAfee of RAWMI and Abby Rockefeller of Churchtown Dairy on the pathogen growth study project.

REFERENCES

1. Beals T. Observations on the collection of fresh unprocessed milk samples from states regulating dairies: There are two kinds of milk. Wise Traditions. Summer 2021;22(2):97-100. https://www.westonaprice.org/wp-content/uploads/Summer2021.pdf
2. Stephenson M, Coleman ME. Final report: Database of primary microbial testing program data for raw milk stored in Microsoft Access®. Coleman Scientific Consulting, Aug. 27, 2021. Available at https://www.realmilk.com/database-of-primarymicrobial-testing-program-data-for-raw-milk-storedin-microsoft-access/.
3. Dietert RR, Coleman ME, North DW, Stephenson MM. Nourishing the human holobiont to reduce the risk of non-communicable diseases: A cow’s milk evidence map example. Appl Microbiol. 2022;2(1):25-52.
4. Brandt AL. Determination of Growth Rate of Salmonella enterica spp., E. coli O157:H7, Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytogenes in Raw Milk. Food Safety Net Services, Mar. 15, 2022. Available for download at https://www.rawmilkinstitute.org/updates/pathogen-growth-in-raw-milk?rq=determination%20of%20growth%20rate%20of%20salmonella.
5. Smith S. How well do pathogens grow in raw milk? Raw Milk Institute, Mar. 16, 2022.
6. Coleman ME, North DW, Dietert RR, Stephenson MM. (Examining evidence of benefits and risks for pasteurizing donor breastmilk. Appl Microbiol. 2021;1(3):408-425.
7. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. Microbiological Risk Assessment of Raw Cow Milk. Risk Assessment Microbiology Section, Dec. 2009. https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/proposals/documents/P1007%20PPPS%20for%20raw%20milk%201AR%20SD1%20Cow%20milk%20Risk%20Assessment.pdf
8. Affleck v. The Attorney General of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 1108 (CanLII). https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2021/2021onsc1108/2021onsc1108.html
9. Coleman ME. Improving the Credibility of the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Report Entitled Microbiological Risk Assessment of Raw Cow Milk (2009) Considering New Evidence. Report submitted to Australian Raw Milk Movement, July 26, 2021. Available at https://www.ausrawmilk.org/.
10. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Biological Hazards. Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to the consumption of raw drinking milk. EFSA Journal. 2015;13(1):3940.
11. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment. 1999. Accessed Mar. 8, 2021 at https://www.fao.org/3/y1579e/y1579e05.htm.
12. National Science and Technology Council. Protecting the Integrity of Government Science. Scientific Integrity Fast-Track Action Committee, Jan. 2022. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/01-22-Protecting_the_Integrity_of_Government_Science.pdf
13. Kolata G, Mueller B. Halting progress and happy accidents: how mRNA vaccines were made. The New York Times, Jan. 15, 2022.
14. Whitehead J, Lake B. Recent trends in unpasteurized fluid milk outbreaks, legalization, and consumption in the United States. PLoS Curr. 2018;10:ecurrents.outbreaks.bae5a0fd685616839c9cf857792730d1.
15. Azzolina NA. Summary Report: Statistical Analysis of Raw Milk-Related Outbreaks, 2005-2016, 2019, as reported in Supplemental Table 1 from Whitehead and Lake, 2018. Analysis funded by RAWMI and submitted subsequently as an affidavit for the Toronto case.
16. Hill C. RDA for microbes—are you getting your daily dose? Biochem (Lond).2018;40(4):22-25.
17. Marco ML, Hill C, Hutkins R, et al. Should there be a recommended daily intake of microbes? J Nutr. 2020;150(12):3061-3067.
18. Society for Risk Analysis. Resilience and the human superorganism: Give us this day our daily microbes. June 2, 2021. https://www.sra.org/webinar/resilience-andthe-human-superorganism-give-us-this-day-our-daily-microbes/
19. Oikonomou G, Addis MF, Chassard C, et al. Milk microbiota: What are we exactly talking about? Front Microbiol. 2020;11:60.
20. LeJeune JT, Zhou K, Kopko C, Igarashi H. FAO/WHO joint expert meeting on microbiological risk assessment (JEMRA): Twenty years of international microbiological risk assessment. Foods. 2021;10(8):1873.
21. Coleman ME, Dietert RR, North DW, Stephenson MM. (2021). Enhancing human superorganism ecosystem resilience by holistically “managing our microbes.” Appl Microbiol. 2021;1(3)471-497.
22. Chen Y, Ross WH, Scott VN, Gombas DE. Listeria monocytogenes: low levels equal low risk. J Food Prot. 2003;66(4):570-577.

The post Raw Milk Risks from a Microbiologist’s Perspective appeared first on Real Milk.

Most states have adopted as law the model publication of the Association of the American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO), a document that governs the production and distribution of commercial feed, including pet food. There is a section in the model publication on feed terms which provides a definition for “milk”; the definition does not state that the milk must be pasteurized. Any state that adopts the feed terms section has legalized the sale of raw pet milk unless its statutes or regulations state otherwise.

Farmers wanting to sell raw pet milk in most states will either apply for a commercial feed permit or file an application for registration with the state department of agriculture; part of the process also includes submitting labels for the raw dairy products the farmer wants to sell. States typically require that the labels contain the statement “for animal consumption only“ or “for dogs and cats.” It is not the producer’s legal responsibility to follow their customers home to find out who is actually consuming the raw pet milk but if customers make it clear that they will be using the milk for human consumption then the farmers are running the risk of a misbranding charge if they go through with the sale. In this context, misbranding means knowingly selling a product for a purpose other than the purpose indicated on the label. There are some states such as Nevada that require a toxic dye or denaturant be added to the milk; in trying to prevent humans from consuming raw pet milk, these states are destroying the market for the product—people aren’t interested in poisoning their pets.

States shouldn’t be able to deny a license or registration application to sell raw pet milk when their laws allow it. Hopefully, more states will be approving farmers to sell raw pet dairy going forward.

Photo credit: More States Allowing Farmers to Sell Raw Pet Milk appeared first on Real Milk.

Raw dairy products are the only foods for human consumption banned in interstate commerce. A question for the court of appeals to consider is: does FDA have the power to prohibit raw butter from crossing state lines when the record before the court does not list a single foodborne illness outbreak definitively attributed to the consumption of commercially produced raw butter?

FDA is claiming it can ban raw butter in interstate commerce under its authority to regulate communicable disease [1], a power granted the agency by the Public Health Services Act (PHSA). Thirty years ago FDA issued a regulation banning all raw dairy products in interstate commerce other than cheese aged 60 days [2].

Does FDA have the power to issue a blanket ban on a food? Or is its authority limited to instances when a specific batch or a lot is suspected of being adulterated and/or making people sick?

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been getting lots of mileage out of its authority to regulate communicable disease. In 2020 the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) used that power to justify an order staying any eviction of residential tenants by landlords during the COVID crisis. In striking down the order, the Supreme Court found that “regulations under this authority have generally been limited to quarantining infected individuals and prohibiting the import or sale of animals known to transmit disease” [3].

Another question for the court is: can FDA require that butter be pasteurized under its power to regulate communicable disease, when the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) seemingly prohibits the agency from doing just that?

There is a conflicting statute in the FDCA defining butter that does not require it to be pasteurized [4]. A separate statute in the FDCA specifically mandates that “[n]o definition and standard of identity and no standard of quality shall be established for … butter” [5]. Standards of identity are requirements for prescribing what a food product must contain to be marketed under a certain name in interstate commerce; they are intended to promote honesty and fair dealing for the benefit of consumers.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a standard of identity exists, for purposes of the FDCA, whenever the government, “by regulation, fix[es] the ingredients of any food,” such that “a commodity cannot be introduced into interstate commerce which purports to be … [that] food … unless [the commodity] is composed of the required ingredients” [6]. The regulation governing the interstate raw dairy ban provides, in part, “No person shall cause to be delivered into interstate commerce or shall sell, or otherwise distribute…any milk or milk product [e.g., butter]…unless…made from dairy ingredients… that have all been pasteurized…” [7].

The demand for raw dairy in the U.S. is booming. There are around a dozen states that currently allow the distribution or sale of raw butter. A court decision in favor of McAfee and FTCLDF will increase that number rapidly in a short period of time as well as reduce the power of an agency that is a major threat to bodily autonomy and freedom of choice and that has long placed the profits of the pharmaceutical and biotech industries ahead of the public health.

The oral argument before the court of appeals will be livestreamed.

• For the archive of Oral Argument Recordings, find links at

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/recordings/recordings.nsf

A recording of all Oral Arguments for April 8, 2022, will also be posted on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWi9futNwg

Livestream link – https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/home.nsf/Content/VL%20-%20Calendars%20-%20Live%20Audio%20Streams%20of%20Oral%20Arguments

For more background on the Raw Butter case and related documents, go to the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund website at https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/campaign-for-raw-food/

FOOTNOTES
1. See 42 USC 264(a)
2. 21 CFR 1240.61
3. Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2487-2488.
4. 21 USC 321a
5. Subbaraman, M. Principal Brief of Appellants Mark McAfee & Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund. USCA Case 21-5170 (Document #1929731, filed 01/07/2022), p. 24 citing 21 USC 341. https://www.farmtoconsumer.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Raw.Butter.1.07.22.ECF-Stamped-Opening-Merits-Brief.pdf
6. Subbaraman, p. 24 citing 62 Cases of Jam v. United States 340 U.S. 589, 593 (1951) (internal quotation marks omitted)
7. 21 CFR 1240.61(a)

Photo Credit: congerdesign on pixabay.com

The post Raw Butter Ban Before U.S. Appellate Court appeared first on Real Milk.

MONTANA – On April 30, the Montana Local Food Choice Act became law, legalizing the unregulated sale of raw milk and all other raw dairy products by producers direct to consumers; there are limited testing requirements for producers but no inspection or licensing, and the producer must keep no more than “five lactating cows, ten lactating goats, or ten lactating sheep” for the production of milk. Previously, there was a limited exception to the prohibition on the distribution of raw milk under Montana securities law, an exception that few producers chose to take advantage of, opting to sell raw milk on the black market. With the passage of the new law, there will be substantially more dairies producing raw milk for direct consumption than raw milk for pasteurization; there are currently forty-five Grade A dairies left in the state.

TEXAS – On May 17, new regulations amending the state raw milk dairy code went into effect in Texas. The regulations are a big improvement over the prior law especially in the following respects:

• Now delivery from licensed raw milk producers (in Texas only licensed producers can legally sell raw milk) to consumers can take place anywhere in the state the two parties agree to. Prior law limited sales and delivery to on-farm, a major problem for producers far away from any population centers.
• The new rules expand the number of raw dairy products licensed producers can sell. Under the previous law, it was clear that producers could sell only raw milk; the regulations now state that they can also sell cream, sour cream, yogurt, buttermilk, whey, eggnog and kefir.
• The new regulations recognize the legality of herdshares, a contractual arrangement under which someone purchases an ownership interest in a dairy animal or herd to be entitled to a portion of the milk production. As long as there is a written bill of sale for the purchased interest and the consumer receives an amount of milk proportionate to that ownership interest, the arrangement is legal. Previously, the Texas Department of State Health Services had interpreted herdshare agreements to be the illegal sale of raw milk if the farmer operating the herdshare was unlicensed.

VERMONT – The Vermont legislature passed a bill going into effect July 1st that allows farm stands and community subscription agriculture programs (CSAs) to sell raw milk “produced on a farm other than the farm or farms where the farm stand or CSA is located.” The bill increases potential markets for raw milk producers; under current law, only producers can sell to consumers.

WEST VIRGINIA – The West Virginia legislature legalized the sale of raw pet milk through the passage of a broader agriculture bill. The state law currently allows the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements if the farmer registers with the West Virginia Department of Agriculture, but few farms have registered so far, partly due to the high cost of the herd testing requirements. The new law opens up new markets for producers.

Demand for raw dairy products has increased over the past year; the trend toward a more favorable overall regulatory climate for raw milk producers should continue.

The post Progress on Raw Milk Laws (US) appeared first on Real Milk.

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.

On October 21st and 22nd, Dennis and Alicia Stoltzfoos, owners of Full Circle Farm, went on trial at the Suwannee County Courthouse in Live Oak, Florida. The dairy farmer and his wife were both charged with one criminal misdemeanor for selling food without the proper permit. The couple represented themselves; their three-and-a-half-month-old daughter, Luanna, was at the defense table for much of the trial. Judge William F. Williams found Dennis and Alicia both guilty but deferred sentencing until April 14, 2020. On November 12, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) piled on, filing an administrative complaint against the couple, proposing to fine them $3,000 for permitting and labeling violations. The Stoltzfooses have until December 4 to respond to the complaint.

With the way the trial turned out, applying the law to the Stoltzfooses’ situation was on trial as well. There have been a number of “what’s wrong with this picture” moments in the case since the state filed the charges in May, raising the question of why did this case have to go to trial. Dennis attended several pretrial hearings at which most of the cases before the court were for shoplifting along with possession or distribution of crystal meth or opioids; so, in the midst of a group of people charged with causing injury to others or themselves was a farmer and his wife both charged with activity that has made others well.

A trial like the Stoltzfooses’ would usually be held in a misdemeanor court room, but the crowd was too big; so, the trial was moved to a larger courtroom. For most misdemeanor cases, it’s typical to have two or three people present; at the Stoltzfoos trial, it was estimated that close to 100 people, including a number of children, were in the gallery. The first day of the trial, Judge Williams commented, “These kids are so much better behaved than I was at that age. My compliments to the parents of the kids.” The second day of the trial, the judge said, “My parents would have given their right arm for me to behave like that.”

While the state called no witnesses saying the food produced by Full Circle Farm (FCF) had made them sick, Dennis and Alicia submitted into evidence over 100 testimonials from customers on how FCF’s food had benefited their health.

State investigations are usually complaint-driven, but the state investigated the Stoltzfoos operation on its own initiative. There has never been a consumer complaint filed against FCF in all the years it has been in business.

Dennis had a prior run-in with the FDACS in 2005 over selling food without a permit; that case was settled when he agreed to obtain a Master Feed Registration that enabled him to sell pet food. He’s sold raw dairy products and other nutrient-dense foods under the registration [other than aged raw cheese, sales of raw dairy products in Florida are only legal for pet consumption]. Customers place orders on the farm’s website and pick up the orders at various delivery sites around north and west central Florida.

From 2006 until 2018, Dennis renewed the registration then let it lapse a year ago. In January of this year, an undercover agent from FDACS made a “buy” of raw milk and other foods from the farm, leading to criminal and administrative charges against farmer and wife.

Dennis admitted at the trial that he did not have a permit when the undercover officer made the purchase and, going forward, would obtain the permits he needed to be in compliance. He was negotiating with the state’s attorney right up to before the day of the trial to reach a settlement in which the charges would be dropped in return for Dennis obtaining the Master Feed Registration and submitting correct labels for the products he wanted to sell. Just 15 minutes before the trial was to start, the state’s attorney told him he would need to get a food establishment permit to sell at least some of the foods he lists on his website for human consumption as well. What foods the farm would have to sell for human consumption the attorney did not say.

There are a number of small farmers in Florida producing safe, nutritious food that, because of the costly requirements of producing and selling food for human consumption (i.e., installing bathrooms, triple sink, etc.), can only afford to sell their food for pet consumption. Those farmers cannot advertise pet food as being for human consumption but, at the same time, the producers have no legal responsibility to stop their customers from eating pet food. There is high quality human food being sold as pet food and people are seeking it out for their own health and the health of their families.

Dennis was a trailblazer in the 1990s in Florida for promoting the principles of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF) and was one of the first Weston Price chapter leaders in the country. He is an educator and has been operating his farm as a healing ministry for nearly two decades, always looking for ways to produce the healthiest food possible. Dennis used the trial as an opportunity to educate the court on the need for changes in the law such that there would be no government interference with producers benefiting health and decreasing medical expenses through the sale of nutrient-dense food. In addition to introducing the customer testimonials as evidence, Dennis also submitted a copy of Joel Salatin’s book, Everything I Want to Do Is Illegal, to be a part of the court record. Judge Williams admitted the testimonials and the book as evidence, carrying the trial over to a second day so that he would have a chance to read both before rendering his verdict.

After Judge Williams found both defendants guilty, the prosecution asked the judge to sentence the defendants to six months probation, payment of $273 in court costs, and the payment of over $900 to FDACS for the cost of its investigation. The prosecution also asked that the court issue an order prohibiting Full Circle Farm from advertising food on its website and selling food until it obtained the required permits, a possible ‘death sentence’ for the farm given how long the licensing process could take. The judge responded to the state’s request by deferring sentencing for six months so that the Stoltzfooses would have enough time to get the needed permits. The crowd at the trial and the testimonials made the difference in the judge’s decision to defer sentencing.

One of the frustrations Dennis had with the labeling requirements was that his operation was transparent without having to have labels on his products. Customers order only through the farm website so they know what they are purchasing. The couple also has an open-door policy; people can call anytime they have questions or go to the farm to look around. Instead of spending $5,000 per year on labeling, why couldn’t that money go towards further enriching the soil on the farm?

The couple had surveyed its customers on labeling earlier, and the consensus was that the customers didn’t want labeling nor any other regulation. As the globalization of the food supply continues, it’s becoming more apparent that unregulated locally-produced food is safer and more nutritious than regulated food from the industrial food system, especially when that food is coming from countries with food safety systems that are substandard to the one in the U.S. Florida has found out how free ”free trade” is with greening disease, an imported malady that has devastated the state’s citrus industry. FDACS’s time would be better spent on imported food than on investigating farms like Full Circle that have never had a customer complaint. There is significant transparency in the operation of the farm without regulation.

The more local food producers there are in Florida, the safer the state’s food supply will be. Passing a law allowing for more unregulated sales from local producers direct to consumers would be the path towards that goal. It’s time for the legislature to consider doing so.

The post Farmer, Wife and Law on Trial in Florida appeared first on Real Milk.