The Raw Milk Institute has already in its young life raised a number of provocative questions.

Should it be about lobbying or not? How will its standards be developed? Is it about publicly or privately available milk…or both?

It is the last question that is perhaps the most tantalizing, since it affects other key aspects of RAWMI’s future.

Mark McAfee makes reference to that question in his comment following my previous post, when he says:

“It is our observation, that there are two camps (at least) in the raw milk movement. Those that appear to want legalized access to raw milk and change of laws, and those that want decriminalization of raw milk with no government regulation or intrusion what so ever.

“It appears that the loudest voices among these two groups is the decriminalization group. RAWMI is a grass roots organization and is responsive to all in the movement. Our primary objective is building access to safe raw milk. That means cows shares or legalized raw milk.”

But then Deborah Stockton corrects McAfee:

“What we want is decriminalization of raw milk with no government regulation or intrusion what so ever IN DIRECT FARMER TO CUSTOMER TRANSACTIONS. None of us is advocating getting rid of Claravale or OPDC or any other ‘public’ raw milk dairy. Just no regs or interference in direct farmer to customer trade. A restoration of a million tiny totally unregulated farms providing raw milk to their communities. That has been normal human practice for millennia.”

I believe McAfee is being sincere when he talks about “building access to safe raw milk (for) cow shares or legalized raw milk.” But more and more people are wondering whether those twin goals–publicly and privately available raw dairy–are truly compatible.

The problem is less about regulation than it is about priorities, in my view.

The first camp that McAfee describes, which wants “legalized access to raw milk and change of laws,” seems to place its emphasis on expanding the market for raw milk any which way it can. I know some people believe that goal is financially driven, and certainly there has to be a financial component, but I think it’s more about getting the milk out there. It doesn’t matter to these proponents if it is two large dairies in each state, like in California presently, or 1,000 smaller dairies in each state. Just get the milk to as many people as possible, so they can experience the wonderful health benefits of raw milk, goes the thinking.

The second camp, which Stockton described, places its priority on “the direct farmer transactions”–in other words, on the sanctity of the private contractual relationship between consumer and farmer. The priority is much less on spreading raw milk consumption as widely as possible than it is on ensuring that those individuals who value access to nutrient-dense food can have it directly from the farmer of their choosing. The consumers choose the farmers who produce the best food, and the farmers benefit economically by selling direct, enough that more and more individuals take up farming…and maybe some day we have “the million tiny unregulated farms providing raw milk…” that Stockton longs for.

Which of these models is the most appropriate for RAWMI? I’d say the private model. For small dairies that are supplying products privately, without government regulation, there is a monitoring void of sorts. Thus, a voluntary set of standards and a testing protocol could be the perfect means of communicating quality to consumers who haven’t spent a lot of time around farms, and aren’t expert enough to measure husbandry and sanitation.

As anyone who has spent much time in the farming community knows, many dairies providing raw milk focus heavily on quality. But there are some, and I don’t pretend to know the percentage, that aren’t well run, and provide milk that isn’t of the highest quality. Their milk may taste “barn-yardy” and/or start souring in five days. As Violet Willis says in a comment following my previous post, “sometimes a small farmer may have an operation that is comparable to a CAFO or factory farm . . . but on a smaller scale…I have seen some seriously bad husbandry over the last month . . . from local farms out there.”

Yes, it can be argued that consumers are equipped to make the final decision, by virtue if what their noses and taste buds are telling them. But I know that many consumers would be reassured to know that the farm they are contracting with via a herdshare or buying club is following a realistic set of husbandry and sanitation standards that are being monitored by an organization like RAWMI.

Still unanswered is the question of whether so-called public raw milk can co-exist with privately available raw milk. The problem seems to be that once raw milk is placed under regulation of some type, the regulators want to have control of privately distributed raw milk. The notion of private raw milk, though, is that it is outside the public realm.

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund puts it well in a recent appeal of the case involving dairy farmers Wayne Craig and Mark Zinniker in Wisconsin. The appeal for the Zinnikers, who make their milk available to herdshare owners, states, “Private contracts and private property are beyond the reach of the State’s police powers when such contracts and property interests are private in nature and do not impact the public’s health, safety or welfare. Thus, a private contract between private parties involving private property (such as the private use of a herd of cows) that does not impact the public’s health, safety or welfare is beyond the reach of the State’s police power.”

We’ll see if the appeals court is more inclined to agree than the lower court that ruled against the Zinnikers and Craigs. We’ll also see if situations develop where the state comes to respect private contracts. Such an opportunity exists in California, where herd share owners are negotiating with the California Department of Food and Agriculture over achieving some sort of co-existence between the two permitted raw dairies, and some hundreds of herdsahre situations.

So I’m increasingly thinking that RAWMI has a role, it just may not be the original role its founders had in mind. That’s not unusual in the world of new and innovative ideas.

***

Raw dairy supporters are beginning to back a campaign to support their local sheriffs attending the Constitutional Sheriffs Convention in Las Vegas Jan. 29-31. Some are contributing to the County Sheriff Project, which will pay for some local sheriffs to attend the conference.

Plus, a number of raw milk supporters are expecting to attend; more on this last item upcoming.