NEW YORK – GOVERNMENT INACTION HURTING RAW MILK PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS

While only a few states have yet to legalize some form of raw milk distribution, there are many among the legal states that need to change their laws to improve access for consumers and give farmers a more viable market for their milk. New York is one state that badly needs to amend its laws.

Under current law in the state, only on-farm sales by permitted producers are legal. The prohibition on the delivery of raw milk by permitted dairies has resulted in millions of dollars in sales every year lost to raw milk farmers in neighboring states such as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The only other raw dairy product New York farmers can produce and sell is cheese aged 60 days, a further limitation costing producers substantial income.

In 2004 the New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYDAM) had plans to legalize the sale of other dairy products but never followed through. Until 1994, the unregulated sale and delivery of raw milk was legal in New York State; that year, NYDAM issued regulations limiting transactions to permitted sales on the farm. NYDAM has the power to issue new regulations, allowing both delivery of raw milk and the sale of any raw dairy product without needing further authorization from the legislature. Farmers and consumers have been contacting NYDAM for years about changing the law, but NYDAM has done nothing, ignoring the massive loss of revenue that instead flows to producers in neighboring states.

A veteran dairy farmer with decades of experience in producing raw milk for both pasteurization and direct consumption has set up an online petition asking signers to contact New York State Agriculture Commissioner Richard Ball and NYDAM Division Chief Casey McCue requesting that the department issue regulations to allow deliveries of raw milk and sales of raw dairy products other than milk and cheese. The petition can be accessed online at: bit.ly/3HjsLmM.

NYDAM’s intentional inaction is not only hurting raw milk farmers and consumers; it’s ensuring that the consolidation of the state’s dairy farms continues. The family dairy farm in New York is rapidly disappearing. A recent USDA Census of Agriculture report shows how far the dairy industry has fallen off in the state. According to the census from 2017 to 2022, the number of dairies declined by one-third in the state; New York lost almost two thousand dairies during that period. Big increases in input prices over the last few years, along with
a federal pricing system that continually shortchanges farmers, have accelerated the number of farms producing commodity milk that have gone out of business. There was already a steep drop in dairy farms before 2017; over the past twenty-five years, the number of dairies in the state has decreased from nine thousand to around three thousand today.

Dairy farmers trying to get out of the commodity system have three options: (1) bottling and pasteurizing their own milk; (2) processing their own milk into value-added products, such as butter and cheese; and (3) selling their own milk for direct human consumption. By far, the last option is the easiest and least expensive way for the dairy producer to escape the commodity system and remain in business. A change in the raw milk laws by NYDAM would enable many more Grade A dairies to successfully make this conversion.

The post Raw Milk Updates, Spring 2024 appeared first on Real Milk.

On June 6, the FDA wrote to all state public health and agriculture agencies advising them on the need to “collectively work to address new developments related to the presence of High Pathogenic Avian Influenza A H5N1 (HPAI H5N1) in dairy cattle.”

Although admitting that “. . . we do not know at this time if the HPAI H5N1 virus can be transmitted to humans through consumption of raw milk and products made from raw milk from infected cows,” the agency recommends that health and agriculture departments “Distribute messaging to the public about the health risks of consuming raw milk and raw milk products” and “[i]mplement a surveillance testing program in your state to identify the presence of HPAI H5N1 virus in dairy herds that might be engaged in producing raw milk for intrastate sale.” The FDA and USDA will provide “technical assistance” in sampling and testing.

Their motive is clearly stated: “For states that permit the sale of raw milk within their state, use regulatory authorities or implement other measures, as appropriate, to stop the sale of raw milk that may present a risk to consumers.”

We can assume from this memo that raw milk farmers will be receiving visits from officials wanting to test their milk for a non-existent virus using a bogus testing method, just as they have done for flocks of chickens.
Fortunately, some chicken farmers have avoided this testing and prevented the slaughter of their animals by insisting that inspectors fill out two questionnaires.

1. Inspector Information form to obtain the names and contact information of those visiting their farm (below).
2. Questionnaire for Inspector, which asks for proof of successful isolation of the bird flu virus, proof of contagious nature of the bird flu virus, type of test that will be used and contact information of the lab that will be doing the testing (below).

Obviously, no inspector will be able to provide the information requested on the form, information that is the farmer’s right to have. The hope is that they will leave and never come back–as they have with astute chicken farmers.

ACTION TO TAKE: Please share these forms with your raw milk producer. We hope that these measures will prevent the FDA’s planned shutdown of raw milk farmers.

Sincerely yours,
Sally Fallon Morell, President
The Weston A. Price Foundation

INSPECTOR INFORMATION

Please write legibly

DATE:___________________________________________________________
NAME:__________________________________________________________
TITLE/POSITION:_________________________________________________
BADGE NUMBER:_________________________________________________
AGENCY:________________________________________________________
OFFICE PHONE:__________________________________________________
CELL PHONE:_____________________________________________________
DIRECT EMAIL:__________________________________________________
OFFICE ADDRESS:________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE OF VISIT:________________________________________________
TYPE OF SAMPLE REQUESTED:_____________________________________
WHAT WILL THE SAMPLE BE TESTED FOR?__________________________
NAME OF SUPERIOR:______________________________________________
TITLE:___________________________________________________________
PHONE OF SUPERIOR:_____________________________________________
EMAIL OF SUPERIOR:_____________________________________________

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR INSPECTOR

All items must be answered before the release of any sample

Name:_______________________________________Date:______________

Type of sample requested:

What will sample be tested for?

Regulation that allows the taking of this sample:

If sampling for a virus:
1. Supply peer-reviewed study showing the appropriate isolation, purification, characterization and genetic sequencing of purported virus you will be testing for;
2. Supply valid, rigorous, repeatable scientific evidence showing that (under conditions that actually occur in nature and/or on farms) it is transmissible to other animals;
3. Supply valid, peer-reviewed studies showing that the virus causes the illness/symptoms it is purported to cause, and that the illness/symptoms are contagious.

Type of test to be used:
Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) __________
Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) ___________
If PCR, how many cycles? ____________
Other (please specify): _______________________________________

For each type of test that you propose to administer, cite or supply valid studies showing that it has been validated for detecting the purported virus (not simply a target sequence, protein or antibody) in the same context that you propose to apply the test:

For each type of test that you propose to administer, supply the following:
Sensitivity: ___________________________________________
Specificity: ___________________________________________
Positive predictive value: _______________________________
Negative predictive value:________________________________

Name of Lab doing the testing:_______________________________________
Address of Lab____________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Phone number of Lab:_____________________________________________
Email of Lab:_____________________________________________________

I certify that the information given in this form or attached to this form is accurate and true:

Signed:_______________________________________
Position:_____________________________________
Date:________________________________________

The post ACTION ALERT: PLANNED SHUTDOWN OF RAW MILK FARMERS appeared first on Real Milk.

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.

Few of us were born when the forces for milk pasteurization launched the first major attack on Nature’s perfect food.  In 1945, a magazine called Coronet published an article, “Raw Milk Can Kill You,” blaming raw milk for an outbreak of brucellosis in a town called Crossroads, U.S.A., killing one-third of the inhabitants.  The Reader’s Digest picked up the story and ran it a year later.

Just one problem with this piece of “reporting.”  There was no town called Crossroads and no outbreak of brucellosis.  The whole story was a fabrication—otherwise known as a lie.  And lies about raw milk have continued ever since. Unfortunately, the fictitious Crossroads story paved the way for laws against selling raw milk, starting with Michigan in 1948.

Here’s another example of lies against raw milk (which I referenced in an earlier post, but it is worth repeating). In 2007, John F. Sheehan, BSc (Dy), JD, US Food & Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition (USFDA/CFSAN), Division of Dairy and Egg Safety, prepared a PowerPoint maligning raw milk; it was presented to the 2005 National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) by Cindy Leonard, MS.

As shown in the table below, all of the fifteen reports associating outbreaks of foodborne illness with raw milk that Sheehan cites are seriously flawed. For example, in two of the fifteen, the study authors presented no evidence that anyone consumed raw milk products and in one of them, the outbreak did not even exist. Not one of the studies showed that pasteurization would have prevented the outbreak.

Fast forward to the present and the ruckus about bird flu in dairy cows—more lies, very clever lies, but lies nevertheless.

In a press release dated March 25, 2024 , the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as state veterinary and public health officials, announced investigation of “an illness among primarily older dairy cows in Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico that is causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other symptoms.”

The agencies claim that samples of unpasteurized milk from sick cattle in Kansas and Texas have tested positive for “highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI).” Officials blame the outbreak on contact with “wild migratory birds” and possibly from transmission between cattle. The press release specifically warns against consumption of raw milk, a warning repeated in numerous publications and Internet postings.

According to the press release, national laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing, but it does not reveal the type of test used to detect this so-called viral illness.

The first lie:   Researchers have found HPAI virus in the milk of sick cows.

Officials have NOT found any viruses in the milk or any other secretions of the sick cows. The CDC has yet to reply to repeated requests for proof of finding the isolated HPAI virus in any fluid of any sick chicken or other animal. Nor have health and agriculture agencies in Canada, Japan, the UK and Europe provided any proof of an isolated avian influenza virus.

As for all the studies you can find in a PubMed search claiming “isolation” of a virus, not one of them shows the true isolation of a virus, any virus, from the fluids (phlegm, blood, urine, lung fluids, etc.) of any animal, bird or human.

The truth is that “viruses” serve as the whipping boy for environmental toxins, and in the confinement animal system, there are lots of them–hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, methane and ammonia from excrement, for example. Then there are toxins in the feed, such as arsenic added to chicken feed, and mycotoxins, tropane and β-carboline alkaloids in soybean meal. By blaming nonexistent viruses, agriculture officials can avoid stepping on any big industry toes nor add to the increasing public disgust with the confinement animal system. Way back in 2006, researchers Crowe and Englebrecht published an article entitled, “Avian flu virus H5N1: No proof for existence, pathogenicity, or pandemic potential; non-‘H5N1’z causation omitted.” Nothing has changed since then.

Here’s your homework assignment:  Contact USDA at Aphispress@usda.gov and ask them to provide proof of the isolation of the HPAI virus or any virus in the milk of the sick cattle.

SECOND LIE: National laboratories have confirmed the presence of HPAI (Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza) through testing.

They don’t say anything about the kind of test they used, but it almost certainly was the PCR (polymerase chain reaction) test. The PCR test detects genetic material from a pathogen or abnormal cell sample and allows researchers to make many copies of a small section of DNA or RNA. The test was not designed to determine or diagnose disease, it was designed to amplify or increase a certain piece of genetic material.

Each “amplification” is a doubling of the material.  If you amplify thirty times you will get a negative; amplify 36 times or more, and you will get a positive.  At 60 amplifications, everyone will “test positive” for whatever bit of genetic material you believe can cause disease. If you want to show that you have a pandemic brewing, just amplify, amplify, amplify. Folks, this is not a valid test, not good science by any stretch of the imagination—especially as there is no virus to begin with. How many times did our health officials amplify the samples they obtained from the milk of the sick cows?  Be sure to ask them when you email Aphispress@usda.gov for proof of the virus.

THIRD lie: The “virus” is highly pathogenic.

According to the Wall Street Journal, one—just one–person working in the dairies got sick and tested positive for avian influenza after exposure to dairy cattle presumed to be infected with the H5N1 bird flu.  The person reported eye redness, or conjunctivitis, as his only symptom—a symptom that can be explained by exposure to any of the many airborne toxins in confinement dairies, or even to toxic EMF such as 5G.  (How are they treating the illness? With vitamin A and herbal eyedrops?  No, the poor sod is getting treatment with a toxic antiviral drug.)

According to the CDC, the disease in humans ranges from mild infections, which include upper-respiratory and eye-related symptoms, to severe pneumonia.  If the “virus” is so highly pathogenic, we’d expect a lot of workers working around these sick cows to end up in the hospital. . . but we’ve heard of none so far.

FOURTH LIE: You can get avian flu from drinking raw milk, but pasteurized milk is safe

According to medical biologist Peg Coleman, “Recent risk communications from CDC, FDA, and USDA regarding transmission of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus or HPAI (subtype H5N1) to humans via raw milk include no supporting evidence of viral transmission from raw milk to humans in the peer-reviewed literature. . . An extensive body of scientific evidence from the peer-reviewed literature . . . does not support the assumption by these US government agencies that [non-existent] HPAI transmits to humans via milkborne or foodborne routes and causes disease. Nor does the scientific evidence support the recommendation that consumers should avoid raw milk and raw milk products [emphasis in the original].”

Coleman notes the suite of bioactive components in raw milk, including bovine milk, that destroy pathogens and strengthen the gut wall. “Many of these bioactive components of raw milk are . . . sensitive to heat and may be absent, inactive, or present in lower concentrations in pasteurized milks. . . Cross-disciplinary evidence demonstrates that raw milk from healthy cows is not inherently dangerous, consistent with the CDC evidence of trends for 2005-2020 and evidence of benefits and risks. There is no scientific evidence that HPAI in raw milk causes human disease.”

And while USDA, FDA and CDC assure the public that pasteurization will make milk safe, they note that “Milk from infected animals is being diverted or destroyed,” implying that pasteurization alone does not guarantee safety. In any event, sales of industrial pasteurized milk continue their relentless decline.

Fortunately, raw milk drinkers are already skeptical of government pronouncements and are skilled at seeing through lies.  Both large and small raw milk dairy farms report that sales are booming. The current bird flu fracas is just another Crossroads, U.S.A., a bunch of lies fostered by a dishonest dairy industry taking aim at the competition.

The post Raw Milk at the Crossroads…Again appeared first on Real Milk.

COLORADO – LEGAL RAW MILK SALES ON THE TABLE

2023 was a big year for the expansion and legalization of raw dairy sales in the state legislatures. The 2024 state legislative session could see more of the same; one state where an effort to legalize raw milk sales is underway is Colorado. Currently, only distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements is legal in the state; Colorado is an outlier in the region—all other states in the Rocky Mountain time zone have legalized raw milk sales.

With Governor Jared Polis indicating he would sign a bill legalizing raw milk sales, the Water Resources and Agriculture Review Committee in the state General Assembly has drafted an interim committee bill to legalize raw milk sales. If the bill is going to get broad support from raw milk producers and consumers, its sponsor is going to have to amend several provisions in the current version.

The interim bill legalizes direct sales from the raw milk producers to consumers at the producer’s place of business, at the consumer’s residence, or at a farmers market or roadside market, if the producer registers with the state department of agriculture. That’s favorable enough, but other provisions in the bill are potentially so onerous that many producers could decide not to make the transition from operating a herdshares program to directly selling raw milk.

For starters, the bill gives the state department of agriculture power to issue rules relating to recordkeeping and the storage, handling, labeling and transportation of raw milk beyond requirements already in the bill. The agriculture department has the power to embargo a producer’s raw milk and to prohibit its sale during an investigation determining whether the producer has violated any requirements either of the bill or of the rules the department has issued. If the department finds the producer has committed violations, it can either (1) request that the attorney general or district attorney bring a criminal or civil action; or (2) “upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, impose a civil penalty in amount not to exceed $1000 per violation. Each container of raw milk sold in violation of this section constitutes a separate violation. If the department determines that a producer has committed two or more separate violations within a twelve-month period, the department may suspend for a period of twelve months, the raw milk producer’s registration….” [emphasis added].

In addition to the draconian penalties the bill prescribes, it also gives the department power to distribute “educational materials regarding the consumption of raw milk, which materials may include language, stating that there are no proven health benefits associated with the consumption of raw milk, but there are known harms associated with its consumption, such as severe infections.”

As it now stands, the punitive measures in the bill could easily be a deterrent to producers changing from a herdshare operation to selling raw milk; there are no penalties contained in the Colorado herdshare law (Colorado Revised Statutes, section 25–5.5–117). There could be little or no increase in access to raw milk for Colorado consumers if the bill’s content remains the same.

NEW MEXICO – RAW MILK SALES NOW LEGAL IN ALBUQUERQUE

On December 5, Mayor Tim Keller signed an ordinance legalizing raw milk sales in Albuquerque by state licensed producers, including at retail stores in the city. Albuquerque stores selling raw milk must hold a raw milk permit issued by the city’s Environmental Health Department.

Retail sales of raw milk have long been legal in the rest of the state, but there has been a total ban on any sales in Albuquerque which has over one quarter of the state’s population.

Activist Lissa Knudsen, with help from the Raw Milk Institute and local raw milk producer Desmet Dairy, was the driving force behind the new ordinance. The ordinance passed out of the Albuquerque city council’s Finance and Government Operations Committee in October 2023 and the City Council the following month en route to the mayor’s desk.

Now that the sale of raw milk in retail stores has expanded to a city with over half a million people, the number of licensed dairies in New Mexico should increase. There are few licensed raw milk dairies in the state at the present time.

This article was published in the Winter 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 Winter 2023 appeared first on Real Milk.

The most important legislation for the local food movement that has been before Congress the past eight years has been the Processing Revival and Intrastate Meat Exemption Act, known as the PRIME Act; in this current session, the bill has been introduced as House Resolution 2814 (HR 2814) [1] and Senate Bill 907 (S. 907) [2]. The PRIME Act would allow states to pass laws legalizing the sale of custom slaughtered and processed meat in intrastate commerce; the lack of slaughterhouse infrastructure throughout most of the U.S. is the biggest weakness of the local food system. Under current law, only the owners of an animal can receive the meat slaughtered and processed at a custom facility; only meat from an animal slaughtered and processed at a federal- or state-inspected facility can be sold.

The PRIME Act would amend the Wholesome Meat Act of 1967 (WMA), the legislation that established these requirements. Unless you are an oligopolist, the WMA has been a disaster. At the time the act passed into law, there were around 9,600 slaughterhouses in the U.S. [3];  the country’s population at the time was around 200 million. Today there are between 2,800 and 2,900 slaughterhouses [4] in the country and the current U.S. population is around 335 million. Four companies now control over 80% of beef processing in the U.S., and four companies control over 60% of pork processing [5].

There has never been a better chance to pass this bill than now. Congress is currently in the process of writing up the 2023 Farm Bill. The PRIME Act has a legitimate chance to be included in the Farm Bill; it has much less chance to pass as a standalone. Giving the bill momentum was a congressional hearing in June that the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform and Antitrust held titled, “Where’s the Beef? Regulatory Barriers to Entry and Competition in Meat Processing” [6]; the PRIME Act was a focus of the hearing. Farmer/slaughterhouse owner Joel Salatin testified on how it could be a solution to the difficulties small farmers and ranchers have in meeting demand for local meat with the current laws in place that favor the big meatpackers.

Congressman Thomas Massie, a cattle farmer representing Kentucky’s 4th district, is the lead sponsor for HR 2814 as he has been since he first introduced the PRIME Act in 2015. Adding more urgency to the need to have the legislation included in the 2023 Farm Bill is a statement Massie made in a Washington Post interview earlier this year, indicating that he might serve only one more term [7], meaning he wouldn’t be around when the next Farm Bill would be deliberated in 2028. There is no one in Congress who would put in anywhere near the time and resources to pass the PRIME Act that Massie has; neither is there anyone who has the expertise on the matter that he does.

To say passage of the PRIME Act is badly needed is a huge understatement. Demand for locally produced meat is booming, but it is difficult for farmers and ranchers to meet that demand with the lack of access to slaughterhouses under inspection. Right now in parts of the country, farmers have to book a slaughterhouse slot as much as 1-1/2 to 2 years in advance. Moreover, farmers often have to transport their animals several hours to an inspected slaughterhouse, increasing their expenses and stressing out the animals which could affect the quality of the meat. The majority of livestock farmers live closer to a custom slaughterhouse than an inspected slaughterhouse.

Aside from better enabling farmers to meet the demand for local meat, passage of the PRIME Act could begin the long-overdue process of decentralizing meat production in the U.S.  According to USDA data from 2022 [8], 52 federally inspected slaughterhouses account for around 93% of the cattle slaughtered in the U.S.; 60 federally inspected facilities account for nearly 98% of the hogs slaughtered in the country. This centralization along with the supply chain breakdowns and labor shortages of the past few years has made the meat supply more vulnerable as well as leading to a decline in quality. It’s likely that passage of the PRIME Act would initially impact a fraction of 1% of meat production, but its revival of the community abattoir would improve food security through increased self-sufficiency at the local level.

Massie said several years ago that he knew of 1,000 shuttered slaughterhouses in the country whose owners would re-open if the PRIME Act became law; the owners did not want to run a business if an inspector was present each time they were slaughtering animals (government regulators typically inspect a custom house only once or twice a year). The owners did not believe they could generate enough revenue operating under laws prohibiting the sale of meat slaughtered and/or processed at a custom facility.

The only argument the opposition to HR 2814 has is food safety, but the data shows they don’t even have that. In response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by the Texas nonprofit Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA), the USDA acknowledged that between 2012 and 2020 there were no cases of foodborne illness due to the consumption of custom slaughtered and processed meat [9]. By contrast, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) between 2005 and 2020, over 6,000 cases of foodborne illness were attributed to beef and pork consumption [10]; the likelihood is that all or nearly all that meat was slaughtered in big USDA facilities that process 300-400 cattle per hour. The big plants process more animals in a day than a custom house would in a year. There is better quality control in a custom facility, inspector or no inspector.

A key part of food safety is traceability–another advantage meat from a custom house has over meat from one of the big USDA facilities. A hamburger in the industrial food system could come from hundreds of cattle raised in multiple states and countries; a hamburger from a custom facility is going to be from one cow.

Increasing the amount of locally produced meat available for consumption would not only benefit food security and food safety but also human health and the economy. With passage of the PRIME Act, there would be less money spent on, and less demand for, resources of the healthcare system—freeing up money to be spent in more productive areas of the economy. The records on foodborne illness outbreaks indicate that a higher percentage of people per serving who consume meat produced by the big plants of the conventional industry cost the healthcare system more money than the people who obtain locally produced meat from small farmers and ranchers. The likelihood is also that people who purchase locally produced meat place less demand for resources on the medical system in the treatment of chronic disease then do those who buy their meat from the industrial system.

Beyond the deterioration of quality the centralization of meat production has caused, there is another development in the conventional industry making passage of the PRIME Act imperative: the production and marketing of alternative proteins, such as cell-cultured meat and insects. Industry has spent billions in the development of alternative proteins even though there is little or no demand for them—with two of the major meatpackers, Tyson and Cargill, being investors. The question is: what will the ruling establishment do to help industry get a return on its investment? Will it involve enforcing policies that will make animal proteins less available? The best response to the ruling elites’ plans is to build out a parallel food system as independent of federal control as possible; a robust slaughterhouse infrastructure will be a centerpiece of that system. The PRIME Act will be a catalyst in making that happen–moving the system towards a day when the local abattoir will once again dot the countryside.‍

References‍

[1]  U.S. Congress. (2023). House Resolution 2814. [PDF]. Introduced April 25, 2023. PDF accessed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2814/text‍

[2]  U.S. Congress. (2023). Senate Bill 907. [PDF]. Introduced March 22, 2023. PDF accessed at https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/907/text

[3] USDA, Statistical Reporting Service Crop Reporting Board. (1969). Annual Livestock Slaughter, April 1969. [PDF] “Table 20 – Number of Livestock Slaughtering Establishments, March 1, 1967, 1968, 1969”, p. 35. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d

[4] USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2023). Livestock Slaughter 2022 Summary (April 2023). [PDF]. [Table – “Livestock Slaughter Plants by Type of Inspection – States and United States: January 1, 2022 and 2023″ Inspected Percent of Total Commercial Slaughter by Species, Month, and Total – United States: 2022 and 2021 Total”, p. 62]. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d

[5] James, H.S., Hendrickson, M.K., and Howard, P.H. (2012, February). Networks, Power and Dependency in the Agrifood Industry. Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics Working Paper. College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources: University of Missouri. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2004496 (Accessed: 7 September 2023). [See  “Table 1 – Concentration ratios and dominant firms for selected agrifood sector”, p. 32]

[6] Forbes Breaking News. (2023, June 13). ‘Where’s The Beef?’: Thomas Massie Leads House Judiciary Committee Hearing On Meat Industry. [Video]. YouTube.com. https://youtu.be/jky4-J-Tsc0?si=qfEkqL2BsH9rATQF‍

[7] Will, G.F. (2023, June 22). “Meet the implacable, off-the-grid libertarian working to energize Congress”. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/21/kentucky-republican-thomas-massie-congressional-plan/‍

[8] USDA, National Agriculture Statistics Service. (2023). Livestock Slaughter 2022 Summary (April 2023). [PDF]. [calculated from tables on pp. 8 and 61]. PDF accessed at https://usda.library.cornell.edu/concern/publications/r207tp32d‍

[9] USDA. (2020, June 25). [Foodborne illness from custom meat]. FOIA response, 2020-FSIS-00397-F.

[10] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2021, May 26). Access® database for outbreaks reported from 2005 to 2020 from all transmission sources (food, water, animal contact, environmental, and person-to-person) [Data set]. Provided by Hannah Lawinger, CDC NORS Data Request Manager.

The post THE TIME FOR PRIME IS NOW! appeared first on Real Milk.

Blog post first published July 19, 2023. Updated for journal publication and republished September 30, 2023.

Graphic: Real Milk Legal Map [1]

View the updated Raw Milk Legal Map, color index, and state-by-state status

Over the past decade or so, a growing number of states have passed laws to either legalize the sale of raw milk and raw milk products or increase access to raw dairy; no year has been as productive as 2023. Resistance from the dairy industry and public health agencies is not as great as it once was, and demand for raw dairy products is increasing rapidly. Through either statute, regulation or policy, 46 states now allow the sale of raw milk for human consumption, the sale of raw milk for pet consumption, or the distribution of raw milk through herdshare agreements.¹ The four outliers prohibiting any sale or distribution of raw milk are Hawaii, Louisiana, Nevada, and Rhode Island.

LEGISLATION

The states passing raw dairy legislation this year include:

• IDAHO – Senate Bill 1036 (SB 1036) removes the limit on dairy animals that herdshare operations can have; under prior law, herds were limited to seven cows, fifteen goats, or fifteen sheep.
• IOWA – Iowa became the 46th state to legalize raw milk sales or distribution when Senate File 315 (SF 315) passed into law. The bill allows the sale from producer direct to consumer on the farm or through delivery of any dairy product. There are testing, labeling and recordkeeping requirements.
• NORTH DAKOTA – House Bill 1515 (HB 1515) legalized the unregulated sale of raw milk and any other raw dairy products from producer direct to consumer. Under prior law only distribution of raw milk and raw milk products through herdshare agreements was legal. HB 1515 originally allowed only Grade A dairies (who produce milk for pasteurization) to sell raw milk to the consumer, but those supporting raw milk sales by all dairies hijacked the bill, turning it into the version that passed. The North Dakota Department of Agriculture (NDDA) has issued a press release² claiming that sales are limited to raw milk only (and not other raw dairy products) under HB 1515 even though the bill states that farms selling raw milk direct to consumers aren’t subject to any provision of the chapter in the North Dakota statutory code, titled “Dairy Product Regulation.”³
• UTAH – House Bill 320 (HB 320) legalizes retail sales of raw milk and any product produced from raw milk if a licensed producer has a majority ownership in the retail store. Licensees may also sell these products on-farm as well deliver and/or sell via refrigerated mobile unit. Prior law limited the raw dairy products licensees could sell to milk, butter, and cream. sell via refrigerated mobile unit. HB 320 marks the fourth raw milk bill since 2015 that the mother-daughter team of Symbria and Sara Patterson, founders of the nonprofit Red Acre Center, have been responsible for passing.
• WYOMING – Senate Bill 102 (SB 102) allows the sale of any raw dairy products produced by unregulated producers in retail stores. Prior law limited transactions to direct-to-consumer. When it comes to food freedom of choice, Wyoming remains way ahead of the curve; allowing any raw dairy products produced by an unregulated farmer to be sold in a retail store would be unfathomable in any other state. How much raw dairy is sold in Wyoming retail stores will likely be determined by what stores’ requirements for a producer to obtain product liability insurance are; it is difficult enough for regulated raw milk producers to get a product liability policy.

The biggest development in 2023 was in Iowa, a state that had once jailed someone for selling raw milk. Senator Jason Schultz (R) and farmer Tom German had been trying for 17 years to legalize raw milk sales in the state. A difference maker this time around was dairy farmer Esther Arkfeld, a mother with young children, who was the face of the effort to legalize raw milk sales in Iowa. Lobbyist Tyler Raygor of Americans for Prosperity (AFP) also helped; Raygor and another member of AFP were the only ones who registered with the state to lobby for the bill; 24 people—representing government agencies, the dairy industry, and Farm Bureau among other organizations—registered to lobby against SF 315.

The national opposition to further legalization of raw milk sales in any state made Iowa a litmus test. Mary McGonigle-Martin, a board member of the national food safety group Stop Foodborne Illness said, “Public health has lost the war on raw milk”⁴. McGonigle-Martin had testified four different times in opposition to Iowa raw milk bills. Passage of SF 315 into law struck a nerve with the mainstream media, which published more stories about raw milk after the Iowa law went into effect than it had in years. USA Today, the New York Times and Forbes, among other major media, ran stories warning about the “health risks” of drinking raw milk in an attempt to dissuade their readers from joining the millions of people who are already consuming the product.

A trend in recent years that accelerated in 2023 was the legalization of the sale of raw dairy products other than milk. In addition to Iowa, North Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming, laws have also gone into effect since 2021 in Alaska, Montana, New Hampshire, and Texas, allowing the sale of numerous products made from raw milk. Value-added is where the money is at; the trend bodes well for the ability of small-scale dairy farmers to make a living. It appears that the dairy processing lobby is no longer fighting the legalization of value-added raw dairy sales like they once did.

The food safety argument–the only argument the opposition has staked its stance on–is increasingly in favor of raw milk proponents. The latest foodborne illness outbreak figures from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) are that in 2020 there were five foodborne illness outbreaks resulting in 28 illnesses that were attributed to raw milk consumption.⁵ The number of raw milk consumers continues to increase considerably; hundreds of thousands of consumers go to realmilk.com each year for the first time to find a source of raw milk in their state. The number of illnesses attributed to raw milk consumption is significantly less than it was a decade ago.

Increased demand, fewer illnesses, and deteriorating quality in the conventional food supply are a formula for raw milk legalization. The next state to lift the prohibition on any raw milk sales or distribution could be Hawaii. That state has had bills for legalizing raw milk sales by micro dairies passed out of the House the last two years only to die in Senate committee.  There is only one dairy producing raw milk for pasteurization in Hawaii. For reasons of food security alone, a raw milk bill there should pass into law.

Whichever of the four remaining states is next to get rid of the ban, the goal of Weston A. Price Foundation President Sally Fallon Morell to have legal raw milk distribution in every state is getting closer to realization.

REGULATION CHANGE

MISSISSIPPI: Until recently, Mississippi allowed the sale of only raw goat milk, and then only if the farm had nine goats or fewer. Thanks to state Agriculture Commissioner Andy Gipson, that has now changed per the policy of the Mississippi Department of Agriculture. Under the policy, distribution of raw milk (including cow’s milk) through herdshare agreements is legal; there has been some pushback from the state department of health, but the policy remains in place. Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) has written herdshare contracts for its Mississippi members. Gipson has been one of the more progressive agriculture commissioners in the country. In 2020 he adopted a policy on distribution of meat from custom slaughtered and processed animals—better enabling small farmers and ranchers to make a living—by removing the limit on the number of owners there could be for a custom animal. Prior to becoming commissioner, Gibson served in the Mississippi legislature where he supported several food freedom bills, including legislation to legalize the sale of raw cow’s milk.

COURT CASE: TEST CASE FOR MAINE FOOD SOVEREIGNTY ACT

An important case from Maine Food Sovereignty Act (FSA) and possibly the state’s Right to Food Constitutional Amendment (RTFA) is ongoing in Kennebec Superior Court. Nathan and Rhiannon Deschaine, owners of Kenduskeag Kitchen, their customer Frank Roma, and the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF) have sued Jeanne Landrew, Commissioner of the state Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), for violations of the FSA and the RTFA. The Deschaines prepare and sell home-cooked meals in Kenduskeag, a town which per the FSA, has passed an ordinance allowing the unregulated sale of most foods direct from the producer to consumer. The FSA gives towns and cities in Maine, the power to adopt ordinances legalizing unregulated local producer-to-consumer commerce within their boundaries.

DHHS sent an enforcement letter to the Deschaines in October 2022, claiming that the couple needed a license to operate their business because, among other reasons, “Kenduskeag Kitchen does not meet [the] definition of direct producer to consumer transactions because it is preparing and selling meals that contain food products and/or ingredients that are purchased from other sites.” The FSA contains no restriction that producers engaging in unregulated commerce under a town ordinance are limited to preparing food with only ingredients that they grow.

Roma is suing DHHS for a violation of the RTFA, which gives individuals the right “… to consume the food of their own choosing …as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching, or other abuses of private property rights, public lands, or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.” Plaintiffs are seeking to have DHHS enjoined from regulating the operation of Kenduskeag Kitchen and requiring it to be licensed; the department has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. A favorable resolution to the case for
the Deschaines, Roma and FTCLDF should lead to a more expansive interpretation of the FSA and RTFA statewide, improving food security and food quality in Maine.

This article was originally a blog post on realmilk.com, and then updated and published in the Fall  2023 issue of Wise Traditions in Food, Farming, and the Healing Arts, the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

References

1. WAPF, Raw Milk Legal Map and State-by-State Notes, latest update July 11, 2023. https://www.realmilk.com/realmilk-legal-map/
2. NDDA, “Raw milk sales now legal, limited to fluid milk,” [Press release], August 4, 2023. https://www.ndda.nd.gov/news/raw-milk-sales-now-legal-limited-fluid-milk
3. North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 4.1-25, “Dairy Product Regulation,” p. 10 (point 3 of clause 4.1-25-40.1). https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t04-1c25.pdf#nameddest=4p1-25-40p1
4. Tony Leys “Public Health Has Lost the War – States legalize raw milk, despite public health warnings,” USA Today, July 3, 2023. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/07/03/raw-milk-legalized-states-unpasteruizeddisease-risks-public-health/70369454007/
5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Access® database for outbreaks reported from 2005 to 2020 from all transmission sources (food, water, animal contact, environmental, and person-to-person) provided by Hannah Lawinger, CDC NORS Data Request Manager on May 26, 2021.

The post Big Year for Raw Milk in State Houses 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.